Shanti Lal and Anr. vs Tara Chand Madan

Shanti Lal And Anr. vs Tara Chand Madan Gopal on 13 July, 1931

Equivalent citations: AIR 1933 All 158

Author: Sen

JUDGMENT

Sen, J.

1. This is an appeal by the defendants and arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,578-10-6. from the defendants. The plaintiff had a commission agency shop at Agra in which he carried on the business of purchasing and selling grain and other goods for his constituents. In October 1924, a large quantity of grain purchased by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants was lying in the godown of the plaintiff. On 6th October 1924, this grain was damaged by an unexpected flood which came to Agra. The river Jumna rose in flood and the godown in which the grain was stored was submerged. Under the orders of the Health Officer a large quantity of grain had to be destroyed. The plaintiff alleged that he was entitled to recover from the defendants the price of the grain which he had to destroy under the order of the Health Officer. The defendants resisted the suit upon various grounds. They pleaded that the plaintiff had not acted with prudence in taking care of the goods bailed to him and that in view of the provisions of Section 214 coupled with Sections 151, 152 and 189, Contract Act, the bailee was responsible for the price of goods which were lost or destroyed from his custody. The standard of diligence required of a bailee under Sections 151, and 152, Contract Act, is that of the average prudent man; and where the bailee has taken the same care of the property entrusted to him as a reasonably careful man may be expected to take of Ms own goods of the same bulk, quality and volume as the goods bailed, he is not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the thing bailed. No cast-iron standard can be laid down for the measure of the care due from him and the nature and amount of care must vary with the posture of each case. The Courts below have arrived at a definite finding that in view of the peculiar circumstances of...