Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Before considering the first question, viz., whether the Tribunal has got jurisdiction on the basis of the power source of the Tribunal under the statute, viz., Section 110 of the Act, we feel that we must be fully informed about the legal status of the appellant in relation to the vehicle of the deceased.

10. Admittedly, the vehicle was in the custody of the appellant and that custody was that of a bailee. Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act, defines bailment. 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. The person delivering the goods is called the bailor. The person to whom they are delivered is called the bailee. The obligation and responsibility of a bailee are delineated in Section 151 of the Indian Contract Act and it postulates that in all cases of bailment, the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of his own goods of same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed. For all intents and purposes as long as the contract of bailment continues, there is nothing wrong in deeming the bailee as the owner of the goods bailed. We will consider the effect of a motor accident caused by the employee of the bailee in greater detail later, after considering the question whether the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to maintain an action against the appellant herein for compensation under the Act.

28. There are decisions to the effect which would show that the bailee's sole interest is essentially possessory and it is demonstrated by his ability to recover for injury to the goods without proof of personal loss against a stranger and is consistent with the principles of bailment generally. A right to immediate possession is better characterised as generating a constructive rather than an actual possession.
29. In Mangan v. Leary (1877) 3 NZ Jur (NS) CA 10 at 16 per Gillies, J. said:
Until I heard Mr. Macassey's able and ingenious argument, it never occurred to me to doubt that the law is that either bailee or bailor may sue a wrongdoer for the entire damage done to the chattel bailed. And after careful consideration of the argument and examination of the authorities, I adhere to my previous opinion.
There is no dispute that a bailee's possession is a prerequisite or to which it is one of several grounds of potential qualification. His lack of full ownership does not preclude him from recovering the full value of the chattel or the full cost of its impairment; the rule in such circumstances is that "as against a wrongdoer, possession is title", Vide The Winkfield, (1902) p. 42 at 60 and Bailment by Palmer, 1979 Edn., p. 177.
30. Palmer in his book Bailment says:
It was only in the present century that the bailee's rights of action against a wrongdoer were finally established, although decisions granting him an action in trover for full value of the goods can be traced from the beginning of the 19th century. It was at first unclear whether his use of this or any remedy was conditional upon his liability to the bailor; if it were not, he would stand to recover more than he had lost, while the wrongdoer would be forfeiting more than the extent of his immediate damage.
31. We have considered now only the bailee's right to recover damages from a wrongdoer in regard to the goods bailed. But the question that has to be focussed is the liability of bailee to third parties. Again we rely on Bailment by Palmer at p. 966. Referring to decided cases, the learned author has epitomized the rule thus:
The bailee's responsibility for injury or loss inflicted upon a stranger to the bailment by the chattel is a simple facet of the ordinary law of negligence or trespass and does not necessitate exhaustive discussion. He will be liable if, through the negligent misuse of the chattel by himself or his servants acting in the course of their employment, a third party is foresee-ably injured or property is foreseeably damaged.