JUDGMENT - D.R. DHANUKA, J.:—This appeal is preferred by original defendant against decree dated 28th September, 1977 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay in Suit No. 9048 of 1975. By the said decree, the trial Court directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 3,560/- together with interest thereon at the rate of of 6% per annum from the date of the decree till payment and cost of the suit.

1A. The Court in informed by the learned Counsel on both sides that in view of the death of the appellant and original respondent No. 2 the heirs and legal representatives of the appellant as well as original respondent No. 2 have been brought on record of this appeal.

2. This appeal involves consideration of interesting questions of law as indicated in the later part of this judgment. The questions of law arising in this appeal are also of public importance to some extent. For the sake of brevity, the parties to the appeal are hereinafter referred to as the defendants and the plaintiffs. The basic question arising in this appeal concerns interpretation, applicability and legality of a printed condition on the reverse of "laundary receipts" issued by the proprietor of the laundary purporting to restrict his liability for quantum of loss to twenty times the laundering charges or half of the value of unreturned articles whichever was less whatever be the cause for non-return of the article entrusted by the customer to the laundary for purpose of laundering. Prima facie, the said printed condition appears to be manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary and opposed to public policy.

3. The plaintiff No. 1 is a leading medical practitioner residing at "Summichha" S.V. Road, Bombay 92. The plaintiff No. 2 is the wife of plaintiff No. 1 and is also a medical practitioner. The plaintiff No. 2 has unfortunately expired. The heirs and legal representatives of plaintiff No. 2 are already on record of this appeal in place of plaintiff No. 2 (i.e. the respondent No. 1 in the appeal). At all material times, the defendant Shri R.S. Deboo, was carrying on business of cleaners, dryers and launderers in the name and style of M/s. Leach Weborny having his office at 34, Hamam Street, Fort, Bombay and factory at 66, Off Heines Road, Worli, Bombay. On or about 27th December, 1974 the plaintiffs entrusted various sarees and other clothes to the defendant for drying, cleaning and ironing at Worli shop of the defendant i.e. as a bailee vide receipt No. 36244 dated 27-12-1974. The defendant agreed to charge a sum of Rs. 22.50 to the plaintiffs for dry cleaning etc. On or about 1st January, 1975, the plaintiffs entrusted to the defendant a brand new stripes woolen suit of their son Dr. Milan for purpose of ironing only vide receipt No. 36283 dated 1-1-1975. The said receipt states that the defendant had received the sum of Rs. 1.75 from the plaintiffs towards ironing charges in respect of the said woolen suit. On 1st January, 1975, the plaintiffs also entrusted to the defendant 8 sarees and 6 blouses of pure silk for purpose of `ironing only vide receipt No. 36284 dated 1-1-1985. The above referred receipt issued by the defendants discloses that the defendants did receive a sum of Rs. 10.40 from the plaintiffs on account of "ironing charges" in respect of all the above referred clothes.

4. The defendant failed to return one silk saree out of the clothes referred to in receipt dated 27-12-1974 which was entrusted by the plaintiffs to the defendant for dry cleaning as stated in the above referred receipt. The defendant failed to deliver the "woollen suit" to the plaintiffs which was entrusted by the plaintiffs to the defendant only for purpose of `ironing vide receipt No. 36283 dated 1-1-1975. The defendant also failed to return 8 sarees and 6 blouses which were delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendant for purpose of `ironing under receipt No. 36284 dated 1-1-1975 as stated hereinabove.

5. The plaintiffs called upon the defendants to return the above referred cl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document