A gave gold to goldsmith B. B put gold in safe with watchman. In dacoit raid, A's gold taken. Is B liable?

This problem sits at the fascinating intersection of three important concepts in bailment — the standard of care under Section 151, the liability for acts of servants and employees, and the defence of vis major (overwhelming force). The answer is more nuanced than it first appears.

The Nature of the Bailment

When A gave gold to goldsmith B, a contract of bailment for reward came into existence under Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. B was a bailee for reward — a professional who accepted the gold for work and labour to be done upon it. As such, the standard of care demanded of B was not merely ordinary care but something higher, consistent with his professional character. The law expects special diligence from professional bailees such as goldsmiths, repairers, and carriers.

Section 151 and the Burden of Proof

The starting point is Section 151, which requires every bailee to take as much care of the goods as a man of ordinary prudence would take of his own goods of the same quality and value. When the goods are lost or damaged while in the custody of the bailee, the loss itself is prima facie evidence of negligence, and the burden of proof shifts to the bailee to show that he had exercised the required care and that the loss occurred without any fault on his part. This is a firmly settled principle — since the bailee is in possession and is the person who knows what happened, he must explain and discharge this burden. An unexplained loss is presumed to be by the bailee's default.

The Watchman Arrangement — The Critical Issue

Here lies the heart of the problem. B did not keep the gold in his own direct custody. He placed it in a safe under the care of a watchman. The law's treatment of this arrangement depends on whether such delegation was within the scope of the bailment.

A bailee may employ servants and assistants in the ordinary management of his custody — keeping goods in a secured safe, having a watchman guard the premises — these are acts within the natural course of keeping goods safely. The bailee remains personally liable for the negligence or default of his servants or employees to whom he entrusts the goods, because the bailee's duty is non-delegable to the extent of the ultimate responsibility. If goods entrusted to a gratuitous bailee are lost, the onus falls on the bailee to prove that the loss was not caused by his fault or the fault of the employee to whom the goods were entrusted by him. The same rule applies to a bailee for reward.

Was the Dacoit Raid Beyond B's Control?

The genuinely difficult question in this problem is whether a dacoit raid — armed robbery — constitutes a vis major or force majeure that exonerates the bailee under Section 152. Section 152 provides that a bailee who has taken the care required by Section 151 is not responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the thing bailed. So if B can prove that he had taken all reasonable precautions — proper locks, a competent watchman, adequate security for a goldsmith's establishment — and that the raid was of such overwhelming force that no ordinary precaution could have prevented it, he may succeed in establishing that the loss occurred without his fault.

However, the matter does not rest there. The critical enquiry is whether the standard of care expected of a goldsmith holding valuable gold was actually met. Courts have consistently held that special care is expected from those who hold goods of high value. A goldsmith holding another's gold is expected to maintain higher security than what would suffice for ordinary goods. If the "safe with a watchman" arrangement was reasonably adequate for the value and nature of the goods, and the raid was truly irresistible, then B may have discharged his duty. But if the arrangement was inadequate — a single unarmed watchman in a poorly secured workshop, for instance — B would be liable because his negligence in not providing adequate security was a contributing cause of the loss.

The Practical Legal Position

B cannot simply plead "dacoit raid" and walk away. The legal position, as it emerges from the scheme of Sections 151 and 152 read together, is as follows. First, since the gold was lost while in B's custody, the initial presumption runs against him. Second, B must affirmatively prove that he took care appropriate to a prudent custodian of valuable gold — adequate physical security, a reliable and competent watchman, a properly secured safe. Third, if the raid was of such character that no reasonable precaution could have prevented it, and B can establish this, then under Section 152 he is not liable. But if the security arrangements were inadequate for the value of the goods in his charge, he is liable — not because of the dacoits, but because his own deficiency in care made the loss possible. The loss flows, even in part, from his failure to provide the standard of security that the bailment of valuable gold demanded.