1. Facts of the Case
- ‘A’ lends his horse to ‘B’ for B’s personal riding.
- The bailment contract is therefore specifically for B’s use only, and not for anyone else.
- B, however, allows ‘C’, a member of his family, to ride the horse.
- C rides the horse with due care, but unfortunately, the horse falls accidentally and gets injured.
- The issue arises whether B is liable to A for the injury to the horse, even though C acted carefully and there was no negligence.
2. Issues in the Case
- Whether B, as a bailee, had the authority to permit a third person (C) to use the horse entrusted for his personal use.
- Whether C’s careful conduct absolves B of liability for the injury to the horse.
- Whether B is responsible for loss or damage to the goods (the horse) when used in a manner not authorized by the bailor (A).
- Whether such use by an unauthorized person constitutes unauthorized use or breach of bailment under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
3. Legal Principles Covered
a) Nature of Bailment
- Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines bailment as:
“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, A is the bailor, and B is the bailee. The purpose of bailment was for B’s personal riding only.
b) Duty of Bailee – Not to Make Unauthorized Use
- Section 154 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 states:
“If the bailee makes any use of the goods bailed which is not according to the conditions of the bailment, he is liable to make compensation to the bailor for any damage arising to the goods from or during such use.” - Allowing C to ride the horse, even though a family member, is an unauthorized use, as the permission was personal to B.
- The consent of the bailor is essential for extending the use of bailed goods to another person.
c) Liability for Unauthorized Use
- Section 155 further provides that if goods are lent for a specific purpose and are used differently, the bailee becomes strictly liable, even if:
- The third party uses the goods with care, or
- The loss or damage occurs accidentally.
- This is a case of conversion or misuse of the bailment, not mere negligence.
- Case Reference:
- Coggs v. Bernard (1703) 2 Ld Raym 909: A bailee is bound to use the goods only in the manner authorized by the bailor.
- Sheikh Mehtabuddin v. Lalmia (1914) 22 Cal LJ 606: When goods are used beyond the authority given by the bailor, the bailee is liable even if loss occurs without negligence.
d) Personal Nature of Gratuitous Bailment
- Since the horse was lent gratuitously (without consideration) and for B’s personal use, the contract was strictly personal and non-transferable.
- Delegating the use to C amounts to breach of the bailment contract, making B liable.
4. Possible Judgement
- The court would likely hold that B is liable to A for the injury caused to the horse.
- Reasons:
- B was authorized to use the horse personally, not to permit another person, even a family member, to ride it.
- By allowing C to ride the horse, B committed a breach of the terms of bailment under Section 154 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
- The fact that C rode carefully and the injury was accidental is irrelevant, as the use itself was unauthorized.
- Once unauthorized use is proven, the bailee becomes absolutely liable for any damage, regardless of negligence.
- Therefore, B must compensate A for the injury sustained by the horse.
Final Decision:
The firm (in this case, B) is liable for breach of bailment as per Sections 148 and 154 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Allowing C to use the horse without A’s consent constitutes unauthorized use, and B is responsible for any resulting damage, even if accidental.
Supporting Provisions:
- Section 148 – Definition of Bailment
- Section 154 – Liability for Unauthorized Use
- Section 155 – Liability for Use Beyond Agreed Purpose
