Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)

Section: 151

Law: Land Customs Act, (IV of 1969)

Section: 106 & 116

(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)---S. 151--Bailee's duties with regard to goods entrusted to him--Onus to prove neglect of bailee--Bailee is enjoined with duty of taking as much care of goods entrusted to him as a prudent man would take care of his own goods similar in quality and bulk--Fact that bailee discharged his statutory duty in respect of goods entrusted to him, could obviously be proved by bailee and not by bailor--Onus to prove that proper steps had been taken by bailee for discharge of duty imposed upon him by law would initially lie on bailee and not on bailor--After bailee had discharged his onus of proof, bailor would then have to prove negligence on part of baillee. Hulsbury's Law of England, 4th Edn.,Vol. 2, p, 716 ref.(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----Ss. 106 & 116--Contract Act (IX.of 1872), S.151--Bailee's liability for loss of things bailed--Warehouse keeper's responsibility for safe custody of goods lodged in his warehouse--Due discharge of such responsibility--Proof--Warehouse keeper would be responsible for safe custody of goods lodged in his warehouse--Warehouse keeper, in case of loss would have to prove that he duly discharged his responsibility of ensuring safety of goods--Burden would then shift upon owner of goods to prove negligence of warehouse keeper--Where such goods had been in custody and care of bailee, owner would have no control over such warehouse-- Bailee alone would know as to what measures he had taken to ensure safety of goods and how damage had been caused to such goods--Maxim: res ipsa lequitur--Application of.-­[Maxim--Burden of proof]. Torts (Edn. XIII),p. 451 ref.(c) Maxim------Res ipsa lequitur, doctrine of--Doctrine of res ipsa lequitur, would apply (i) when occurrence suggested as a matter of reasonable inference, that same was the result of negligence of defendant or of someone for whose acts or omissions he was responsible, (ii) cause of occurrence was unknown and (iii) presumption of negligence raised by occurrence was not rebutted by any explanation based on additional facts proved. Torts (Edn. XIII),p. 451 and Torts (Edn.XI),p.399 rel.(d) Contract-----Doctrine of privity of contract--Scope…