https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279241 A damaged vehicle dealt with under the insurance policy placed custody with the insurer and repair control with the repairer, so the insurer was treated as bailee and the repairer as sub-bailee. Both were bound to exercise the ordinary prudence required in bailment and, once the car was destroyed in their custody, had to prove due care. No adequate proof of safe storage was shown, and evidence suggested unsafe workshop conditions. The plaintiff therefore recovered the proved value of the car destroyed by fire, and the decree in the plaintiff's favour was restored with costs. en-us Fri, 22 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Mar 2019 17:07:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279241 A damaged vehicle dealt with under the insurance policy placed custody with the insurer and repair control with the repairer, so the insurer was treated as bailee and the repairer as sub-bailee. Both were bound to exercise the ordinary prudence required in bailment and, once the car was destroyed in their custody, had to prove due care. No adequate proof of safe storage was shown, and evidence suggested unsafe workshop conditions. The plaintiff therefore recovered the proved value of the car destroyed by fire, and the decree in the plaintiff's favour was restored with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279241