indra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

civil - contract - section 148 of contract act, 1872 - whether damage can be given for the loss of luggage by roadways bus - free luggage allowed by roadways bus - no implied contract - no entrustment - no liability of the roadways bus - no damages to be given. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or..........thus be a case of bailment and the luggage must be deemed to have been entrusted to the conductor. according to him, if the luggage is not returned the state of u. p. owning the roadways must be held responsible as a bailee. this contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted.3. according to section 148 of the indian contract act a bailment is the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose, upon a contract that they shall, when the purpose is accomplished be returned etc. in this case there is no contract express or implied and the mere fact that the passenger is allowed free allowance of certain luggage and the luggage is to be kept at a specific place does not make it a case of any implied contract of the return of the luggage at the destination. the roadways may have agreed to carry a passenger or may have allowed him free allowance to carry luggage but it undertakes no responsibility for the luggage, so it cannot be treated to be a case of bailment. the learned judge small causes has looked into the counterfoil of receipt book through which luggage is booked by u. p. roadways and has found that even in such cases there is an agreement that the roadways shall not be responsible for the loss, of the luggage. in the present case the luggage was not even booked and the mere fact that the petitioner was travelling by a bus would not make it a case of entrustment of luggage or a case of bailment creating a liability of the carrier under section 148 of the contract act. the court below rightly held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages.4. the revision, therefore, fails and is dismissed. no order is made as to costs.