1983 (7) TMI 336 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent-company was a bailee of the motor car of the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff.
2. 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.
3. The value of the motor car destroyed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the respondent-company was a bailee of the motor car of the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff:
The plaintiff's car, insured with the respondent (Insurer), was damaged in an accident and subsequently destroyed in a fire while at a repair workshop. The plaintiff argued that the Insurer was a bailee of the car and thus liable for the loss. The trial court agreed, holding the Insurer liable as the car was in the possession of the repairer, an agent of the Insurer. The High Court, however, concluded that the Insurer was not a bailee, as the car was handed over to the repairer by the plaintiff's son without reference to the Insurer. This Court reversed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the Insurer had an obligation under the insurance contract to repair the car and had effectively taken custody of it through the repairer, making the Insurer a bailee and the repairer a sub-bailee.

2. 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:
The Court noted that the burden of proof was on the bailee (Insurer) and sub-bailee (repairer) to show they took reasonable care of the car. The trial court found that the repairer failed to take such care, a finding not addressed by the High Court. The Court observed that no evidence was provided by the Insurer or repairer to demonstrate the care taken. The plaintiff's evidence indicated the car was kept carelessly in a workshop with inflammable materials. Thus, the Court concluded that the bailee and sub-bailee did not take the required care, making the Insurer liable for the loss.

3. The value of the motor car destroyed:
The plaintiff claimed the value of the car at the time of its loss was Rs. 7,000. The trial court had decreed the plaintiff's suit for this amount, and the Court confirmed this finding, agreeing that Rs. 7,000 was the measure of the loss suffered by the plaintiff.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's decree with costs throughout. The Court held that the Insurer was a bailee of the car, failed to take reasonable care, and was liable for the loss valued at Rs. 7,000.