Atul Mehra v Bank of Maharastra

Facts: - Atul Mehra (appellant) had hired locker No. 75 on 15th January 1986 at Bank of
Maharashtra (respondent). He had deposited jewellery in the said locker the value of which
he claimed as Rs 4,26,160. The strong room in which the locker was located was broken in
and the contents thereof were stolen by miscreants. On 9th January 1989, a FIR for the same
was filed. It was stated in the FIR that all other 43 lockers in the strong room were also
broken in and contents thereof stolen. On 2nd February 1989, all the 44 locker holders made
representation to the bank by a registered acknowledgment duly pointing out the gross
negligence and misconduct of the respondent-bank in maintaining the lockers. They have
contended that the alleged strong room was made up affair and it was made only of plywood,
whereas it ought to have been made of iron and concrete. On 20th February 1989, a
representation to this effect was also made to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India,
and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar. On 21st July 1989, the police had made a
report about the defective strong room and the lockers therein.
Issue Raised: -
1. Would the relationship between the locker hirer and the bank fall within the definition
of bailment as given in Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?
Held: -
Here the case of Kaliaperuman Pillai v. Visalakshmi Achi, AIR 1938 Mad 32 was referred
and the hon’ble court held that that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a case of bailment,
as provided in Section 148 &section 149 of the Indian Contract on the basis of the same
principle that was laid down in Kaliaperumal Pillai case.