BailmentBurden of proofDelhi High Court

Gopal Singh Hira Singh v Punjab National Bank

AIR 1976 Delhi 11519762 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The plaintiff pledged goods with the defendant bank as security for an advance. The goods were stored in a godown under the bank's control. The goods deteriorated while in the bank's custody.
Issue
Where goods deteriorate in a bailee's custody, does the bailor have to prove negligence, or must the bailee prove that he took the care required by S.151?
Held
The court held the bank liable. A bailee, being in possession, is in the best position to know what happened to the goods and how they were kept. He is bound to account for them. Once the bailor proves delivery and the fact of loss or deterioration, the onus shifts to the bailee to show that he exercised the care of a person of ordinary prudence in respect of his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value. Since the bank failed to discharge that onus, it could not claim the protection of S.152.
Principle
A bailee in possession must account for the goods. Where goods are lost or damaged in the bailee's custody, the onus lies on the bailee to prove that he exercised the care required by Section 151.
Cite this

Facts

  • The plaintiff pledged goods with the defendant bank as security for an advance.
  • The goods were stored in a godown under the bank's control.
  • The goods deteriorated while in the bank's custody.
  • The plaintiff claimed compensation for the deterioration.
  • The bank denied liability, contending that no negligence had been proved against it.

Issue

  1. Where goods deteriorate in a bailee's custody, does the bailor have to prove negligence, or must the bailee prove that he took the care required by S.151?

Held

  • The court held the bank liable. A bailee, being in possession, is in the best position to know what happened to the goods and how they were kept. He is bound to account for them. Once the bailor proves delivery and the fact of loss or deterioration, the onus shifts to the bailee to show that he exercised the care of a person of ordinary prudence in respect of his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value. Since the bank failed to discharge that onus, it could not claim the protection of S.152.

Ratio decidendi

The evidential burden on the question of care rests on the bailee because the relevant facts lie within his exclusive knowledge. Section 152 exempts a bailee who has taken the S.151 care, but the bailee must establish that he did so; it is not for the bailor to prove the negative.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Cite for the burden of proof in bailment claims, which is a frequently overlooked point.
  • Combine with S.151 and S.152 in any problem involving goods lost or damaged in a bailee's custody, including bank lockers, warehouses and repairers.
  • Note the practical consequence: a bailee who cannot explain the loss will generally be liable.
  • Contrast with Kaliaperumal Pillai v Visalakshmi 1938 (1938), where the threshold question of possession was answered against the bailor so that no duty arose at all.

Cite this

Citation

Gopal Singh Hira Singh v Punjab National Bank AIR 1976 Delhi 115

Reported: AIR 1976 Delhi 115; authority on the evidential burden resting on a bailee, cross-verify citation before exam use. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.