Case: N.R. Srinivasa Iyer Vs. New India Assurance Co., Ltd

the plaintiffs to the same extent as the bailee. The Privy Council, affirming the decision in Morriss case [1965] 2 All ER 725 (CA), held that the bailment to the shipowners continued till the goods were delivered to the plaintiff, but in the meantime there was a sub-bailment from the shipowners to the defendants. The defendants as sub-bailee were given and took possession of the goods for the purpose of looking after them and delivering them to the holders of the bill of lading who were the plaintiffs, thereby the defendants took on this obligation from the plaintiff to exercise due care for the safety of the goods, although there was no contractual relations between the plaintiffs and the defendants. For this proposition Morriss case [1965] 2 All ER 725 (CA) was held to be the principal authority and it was virtually followed.It is not necessary to multiply the decisions further.13. Turning to the facts of this case, as pointed out earlier, the contract of insurance as evidenced by the insurance policy clearly spelt-out a duty and an obligation to remove the damaged car covered by the policy to the nearest repairer as soon as the accident occurred. This was an obligation cast on the insured to be carried out on behalf of the insurer, and this was to be done for the benefit of the insurer because the insurer had the option to repair or to replace the car. In the background of these facts, the handing over of the car by son of the plaintiff to the repairer would constitute a delivery on behalf of the insurer who would be the bailee and the repairer would be the sub-bailee. This inference is further strengthened by the correspondence that ensued between the insurer and the repairer. The obligation to get the car repaired was of the insurer. It had a right to take the car into its custody. It did formally take the car into the custody when it accepted the repairer to whom the custody was given as the one acceptable to them and entered into negotiations about the repair charges and finally agreed to pay the repair charges to the repairer. Unquestionably, the insurer would be the bailee and the repairer would be the sub-bailee.14. The second point which this court directed the High Court to decide was whether the respondent-company failed to take as much care of the motor car as a person of ordinary prudence would in similar circumstances take of his own motor car of the same quality and value ? When the car was in the custody of the sub-bailee, it was destroyed by fire that occurred in the repairers workshop. The sub-bailee was bound to take the same care as a man of ordinary prudence would take in regard to his own goods of the same quality and value as was expected of the bailee. Now, no evidence has been led by the defendants to explain what amount of care the bailee or the sub-bailee took in respect of the car. When the custody is of the bailee or the sub-bailee, the burden is on them to show how they handled the car. This is well established and needs no authority. In Morriss case [1965] 2 All ER 725 (CA), the question of burden of proof was examined by the Court of Appeal and the law was stated as under :" Once a man has taken charge of goods as a bailee for reward, it is his duty to take reasonable care to keep them safe : and he cannot escape that duty by delegating it to his servant. If the goods are lost or damaged, whilst they are in his possession, he is liable unless he can show--and the burden is on him to show--that the loss or damage occurred without any neglect or default or misconduct of himself or of any of the servants to whom he delegated his duty. "15. In the present case, the trial court held that the repairer, the sub-bailee, failed to take that much care as a prudent man would take of his own thing in respect of the car. The High Court has not touched this aspect while reversing the decision of the trial court. There is no evidence on behalf of the insurer on the question as to what amount of care has been taken by the repairer, the sub-bailee. One R. Rajaram, D.W. 1, was examined on behalf of the insurer, and there is not one word in his examination-in-chief as to what degree of care was taken to keep the car in safe custody by the sub-bailee. No one was examined on behalf of the sub-bailee. The burden was on them to establish to the satisfaction of the court as to what degree of care was taken in respect of the damaged car. Plaintiff has led some evidence in this behalf as to the careless manner in which the car was kept in the workshop where inflammable material was kept. Without doubt the burden being on the bailee and the sub-bailee and the same having not been discharged, the learned trial judge was perfectly justified in accepting the evidence of the plaintiff and in recording the finding that the bailee and the sub-bailee had not taken such care of the car as was expected of a prudent man in respect of his own goods of the same quality and value. Therefore, the bailee is liable for the loss suffered by the plaintiff, the bailor.The last point which this court directed the High Court to determine was about the value of the destroyed car. The plaintiff has given the value of the motor car at the time of its loss at Rs. 7, 000, and that is the measure of the loss suffered by the plaintiff on account of the loss of the car. The trial court had decreed plaintiffs suit to the extent of Rs. 7, 000. The finding is confirmed.Fo

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The High Court did not make any reference to the terms of the contract of insurance between the parties before rejecting the plaintiffs case that the insurer was the bailee and the repairer was the sub-bailee who had custody of the car on the entrustment of the custody for the avowed object of repair by the bailee to the sub-bailee. For us, it is a bit surprising that the High Court should have rejected the plaintiffs case out of hand without the slightest reference to the contract of insurance evidenced by the policy, Ex. P-1. A bare persual of some of its conditions would unmistakably lead to the conclusion that the insurer was a bailee of the motor car inthe present case, the trial court held that the repairer, the sub-bailee, failed to take that much care as a prudent man would take of his own thing in respect of the car. The High Court has not touched this aspect while reversing the decision of the trial court. There is no evidence on behalf of the insurer on the question as to what amount of care has been taken by the repairer, the sub-bailee. One R. Rajaram, D.W. 1, was examined on behalf of the insurer, and there is not one word in his examination-in-chief as to what degree of care was taken to keep the car in safe custody by the sub-bailee. No one was examined on behalf of the sub-bailee. The burden was on them to establish to the satisfaction of the court as to what degree of care was taken in respect of the damaged car. Plaintiff has led some evidence in this behalf as to the careless manner in which the car was kept in the workshop where inflammable material was kept. Without doubt the burden being on the bailee and the sub-bailee and the same having not been discharged, the learned trial judge was perfectly justified in accepting the evidence of the plaintiff and in recording the finding that the bailee and the sub-bailee had not taken such care of the car as was expected of a prudent man in respect of his own goods of the same quality and value. Therefore, the bailee is liable for the loss suffered by the plaintiff, the bailor.The last point which this court directed the High Court to determine was about the value of the destroyed car. The plaintiff has given the value of the motor car at the time of its loss at Rs. 7, 000, and that is the measure of the loss suffered by the plaintiff on account of the loss of the car. The trial court had decreed plaintiffs suit to the extent of Rs. 7, 000. The finding is confirmed.