Indian Contract Act, 1872 · Chapter IX: Of Bailment
Section 152: Bailee when not liable for loss, etc., of thing bailed
In plain words
Unless there is a special contract, a bailee who has taken the care required by section 151 is not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods.
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
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.
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 152 says a bailee who has taken the care described in section 151 is not responsible, in the absence of a special contract, for loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods. Liability is based on fault, not on the bare fact of loss.
Key points
- If due care was taken, loss by theft, fire or other accident falls on the bailor.
- A special contract can make the bailee more liable, even an insurer of the goods.
- Whether it can make the bailee less liable than section 151 is doubtful; courts lean against clauses that excuse negligence.
- Loss after the time for return has passed falls under section 161, where the bailee is liable regardless of care.
Key Supreme Court rulings
Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. v. Best Roadways Ltd. 2000 INSC 152
Even a special contract cannot absolve a common carrier from liability for loss caused by its own negligence or that of its servants.
Common mistakes
- Assuming the bailee is liable simply because the goods were lost.
- Forgetting the special contract route for wider liability.
Read with: Section 151 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 152
- Taj Mahal Hotel v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
- The Chairman, Board of Trustees Cochin Port Trust v. M/S Arebee Star Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
- Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. v. Best Roadways Ltd.
- The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay and Ors v. M/S Sriyanesh Knitters
- St. Joseph Textiles v. Union of India and Anr.
- The Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. The Premier Automobiles Ltd.
- State of Kerala v. General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras
- Union of India v. Steel Stock Holders Syndicate, Poona
- Trustees of the Port of Madras v. M/S. Aminchand Pyarelal & Ors .
- Trustees of Port of Bombay v. The Premier Automobiles Ltd. and Another
- Union of India v. West Punjab Factories Ltd.
- Union of India v. Mahadeolal Prabhudayal
- The Trustees of the Port of Madras by Its Chairman v. K. P. v. Sheik Mohamed Rowther & Co. and Others