VoxJuris
Home › Acts › Indian Contract Act, 1872 › Chapter IX › Section 151

Indian Contract Act, 1872 · Chapter IX: Of Bailment

Section 151: Care to be taken by bailee

In plain words

In every bailment, the bailee must take as much care of the goods as a person of ordinary prudence would take of their own goods of the same bulk, quality and value in similar circumstances.

A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.

Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓

Official text

1In 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 the same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed2 .

Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.

Understanding this section

Section 151 fixes the bailee's duty of care: as much care as a person of ordinary prudence would, in similar circumstances, take of their own goods of the same bulk, quality and value. It applies in all cases of bailment, paid or gratuitous.

An objective standard

The standard is that of a reasonable person looking after their own goods of the same kind. A bailee who is careless with their own belongings gets no relief from that habit. What is reasonable depends on the value of the goods: cash and jewellery call for more care than old furniture.

Burden in practice

Because the goods were in the bailee's sole custody, the bailee is the one who knows what happened. Courts therefore expect the bailee to explain the loss and show the care taken. In Taj Mahal Hotel the Court adopted a rule of prima facie negligence: once loss in the bailee's custody is shown, the bailee must prove it took the care section 151 requires.

Contracting out

Section 152 allows a special contract to vary liability. Courts read such clauses strictly against the bailee, and there is a strong body of opinion that a bailee cannot contract out of liability for its own negligence. For carriers, the Supreme Court has held that even goods booked at owner's risk do not excuse loss caused by the carrier's negligence.

Carriers

Common carriers are governed by the Carriers Act, 1865 (now the Carriage by Road Act, 2007), which places a heavier duty on them than section 151. Even a booking at 'owner's risk' does not excuse loss caused by their negligence.

Key Supreme Court rulings

  • Taj Mahal Hotel v. United India Insurance Co. 2019 INSC 1245

    Common law strict liability of innkeepers was too burdensome for India; instead the rule of prima facie negligence applies, under which the hotel as bailee must show it took the care required.

  • Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. v. Best Roadways Ltd. 2000 INSC 152

    A common carrier whose warehouse fire destroyed goods booked at owner's risk was liable for loss caused by its own negligence or that of its agents; even a special contract cannot absolve the carrier of that.

Common mistakes

  • Measuring care by the bailee's own habits instead of an ordinary prudent person's.
  • Putting the whole burden on the bailor to prove exactly how the goods were lost.
  • Assuming an owner's risk notice automatically excuses a negligent bailee.

Read with: Section 152 Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 148 Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 161 Indian Contract Act, 1872

Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.

Supreme Court judgments citing the section 151