30. ‘A’ hires a carriage of ‘B’. The carriage is un-safe although ‘B’ is not aware of it and ‘A’. Is injured. Is B responsible to ‘A’ for the injury.

1. Facts of the Case

• A, the hirer, hires a carriage from B, the owner.
• The carriage is defective and unsafe for use, but B is unaware of the defect.
• During the use of the carriage, A is injured due to the defect.
• The issue arises whether B, as the bailor, is responsible to A, the bailee, for the injury caused by the unsafe carriage — even though B had no knowledge of the defect.

2. Issues in the Case

1. Whether B, the bailor (owner), is liable for injuries caused to A, the bailee (hirer), due to defects in the carriage.
2. Whether the ignorance of the defect by the bailor absolves him from liability.
3. What are the duties of the bailor in a contract of hire (bailment for reward) under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
4. Whether A is entitled to compensation for the injury caused by the unsafe carriage.

3. Legal Principles Covered

a) Bailment Defined – Section 148, Indian Contract Act, 1872

“A bailment is the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose, upon a contract that they shall, when the purpose is accomplished, be returned or otherwise disposed of according to the directions of the person delivering them.”

In this case:

• B is the bailor (who delivers the carriage).
• A is the bailee (who hires and uses it).

b) Duty of Bailor – Section 150, Indian Contract Act, 1872

“The bailor is bound to disclose to the bailee faults in the goods bailed of which he is aware, and which materially interfere with the use of them or expose the bailee to extraordinary risk. If he fails to do so, he is responsible for the damage arising to the bailee directly from such faults.”

• The law makes a distinction between two types of bailments:
  1. Gratuitous Bailment (without reward)
     • Bailor is liable only for known defects.
  2. Bailment for Reward / Hire
     • Bailor is liable for all defects, whether known or unknown, because he is presumed to ensure that the goods are reasonably safe for use.

In this case, since the carriage is hired for reward, B is bound to provide a carriage fit for use and is responsible even for latent (unknown) defects.

c) Applicability to the Present Case

• The contract between A and B is a bailment for hire (a carriage hired for consideration).
• Even though B was not aware of the defect, he is bound to ensure the safety and fitness of the carriage for the intended purpose.
• The failure of the carriage, resulting in injury to A, constitutes a breach of the bailor’s implied duty.

Therefore, B is liable for damages.

d) Relevant Case Law

1. Hyman & Wife v. Nye & Sons (1881) 6 QBD 685
   • The defendant hired out a carriage that was defective and caused injury to the hirer.
   • Held: The owner was liable even though he was unaware of the defect.
   • Principle: In a contract of hire, the bailor must ensure that the chattel is fit and safe for use.
2. Indian Case Reference – Section 150, Contract Act
   • Reflects the same principle: a bailor for reward is responsible for all defects, whether known or unknown.

4. Possible Judgement

• The carriage hired by A from B was unsafe, resulting in injury to A.
• The hiring was for consideration, hence it constitutes a bailment for reward under Section 150 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
• B’s ignorance of the defect does not relieve him of liability, since in a bailment for hire, the bailor is bound to provide goods reasonably fit for use.
• Therefore, B is responsible for the injury suffered by A, and A is entitled to compensation.

Judgement:
B is liable to compensate A for the injury caused by the unsafe carriage, despite being unaware of the defect.
The liability arises from Section 150 of the Indian Contract Act, which imposes an implied warranty of fitness on the bailor in a bailment for hire.

About lawgnan:

To understand how liability arises in contracts of bailment and hire, explore detailed legal notes and case summaries at Lawgnan.in. Learn how Section 150 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, places responsibility on the bailor for both known and unknown defects in hired goods. Dive into landmark judgments like Hyman v. Nye & Sons (1881) and Indian interpretations that establish the principle of implied warranty of fitness. Lawgnan.in provides clear, concise, and exam-ready explanations for law students and professionals. Strengthen your legal understanding today by visiting Lawgnan.in.