Section 152 Contract Act: Bailee when not liable for loss, etc., of thing bailed

Section 152 of Indian Contract Act: Bailee when not liable for loss, of thing bailed

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

The bailee, in the absence of any special contract, is not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the thing bailed, if he has taken the amount of care of it described in section 151.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Contract Sec 2(h)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 152

The bailee, in the absence of any special contract, is not responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the thing bailed, if they have taken the amount of care of it required by Section 151. This provision establishes that the bailee is not an absolute insurer of the goods, relieving them from liability where damage occurs despite the exercise of ordinary commercial prudence.

Bail & Custodial Standards: Where bailed goods are stolen, destroyed by fire, or lost in transit, the legal burden of proof rests upon the bailee to demonstrate that they exercised the required statutory standard of care and that the loss resulted from an inevitable accident, an act of God (vis major), or third-party violence that reasonable precautions could not prevent.
Core Legal Standard: While parties may alter this liability by special contract—such as freight carriers assuming strict insurer liability or warehousemen limiting maximum liability through agreed tariffs—exclusion clauses that seek to exempt the bailee from liability for their own gross negligence are strictly construed and frequently struck down as contrary to public policy under Section 23.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Union of India v. Udho Ram & Sons (AIR 1963 SC 422): The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving that reasonable care under Section 151 was taken lies upon the bailee seeking exoneration under Section 152.
State of Gujarat v. Memon Mahomed Haji Hasam (AIR 1967 SC 1885): The Supreme Court held that where the government seizes property under statutory powers, it stands as a bailee; failure to take care under Section 151 precludes protection under Section 152, obligating the State to compensate for the lost property.

Legal Commentary:

Under Section 152, while parties may contract to increase the bailee's liability to that of an insurer, contracts purporting to exempt the bailee from all liability even for gross negligence are void as opposed to public policy under Section 23.

Section 152: Bailee when not liable for loss, etc., of thing bailed

Section 152 of Indian Contract Act: Bailee when not liable for loss, of thing bailed

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 152