The judgment emphasizes the requirements for establishing bailment under Sec. 148 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, highlighting the need for entrustment and delivery of goods by the bailor to the bailee, and the contract to return the goods. It also discusses the bailee's duty of care as per Sec. 151 and 152 of the Act.

1. In Brooms Legal Maxims, Tenth Edition, Indian Economy Reprint 1995, the following passages occur at pages 90, 91 and 120, respectively : "It has been an ancient observation in the laws of England, that, whenever a standing rule of law, of which the reason, perhaps, could not be remembered or discerned, has been wantonly broken in upon by statutes or new resolutions, the wisdom of the rule has in the end appeared from the inconveniences that have followed the innovation (o); and the sages of the law have, therefore, always suppressed new and subtle inventions in derogation of the common law (p). It is, then, an established rule to abide by former precedents, stare decisis, where the same points come again in litigation, as well to keep the scale of justice steady and not liable to waver with every new Judges opinion, as also because, the law in that case being solemnly declared, what before was uncertain and perhaps Indifferent, is now become a permanent rule, which it is not in the breast of any subsequent Judge to alter according to his private sentiments; he being sworn to determine, not according to his own private judgment (q), but according to the known laws of the land not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain the old (r) jus dicere et non jus dare (s). Accordingly where a rule has become settled law, it is to be followed, although some possible inconvenience may grow from a strict observance of it, or although a satisfactory reason for it is wanting, or although the principle and the policy of the rule may be questioned (z). If, as has been observed, there is a general hardship affecting a general class of cases, it is a consideration for the Legislature, not for a Court of justice. If there is a particular hardship from the particular circumstances of the case, nothing can be more dangerous or mischievous than upon those particular circumstances to deviate from a general rule of law (a); "hard cases", it has repeatedly been said, are apt to "make bad law" (b). It may seem a hardship upon the person suffering the damage that he is without remedy; but by that consideration the Courts ought not to be influenced. "Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad law" (u).

2. I am constrained to reiterate the aforesaid principles at the very threshold of the judgment as a reminder to myself. This was necessitated by the eloquent and persistent arguments of Mr. R. K. Chhibbar, learned Senior Counsel, who has argued with a great deal of compassion and made every effort to evoke sympathy of this Court for plaintiff No. 2, Smt. Pushpa Mehra.

3. This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 17-10-1998 passed by Shri P. S. Virk, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar whereby the suit for recovery for a sum of Rs. 4,26,160/- instituted by the appellants against the defendants-bank, has been dismissed with costs and the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Amritsar, on 9-1-2001, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 17-10-1998, has been dismissed. The learned Lower Appellate Court has ordered that the parties are left to bear their own costs.

4. The pleaded case of the appellants i.e., plaintiffs in the trial Court is that they hired locker No. 75 on 15-1-1986 from the respondent-bank i.e. defendant in the trial Court and respondent in the Lower Appellate Court as well as in this Court. According to the appellants, they had deposited jewellery in the value of Rs. 4,26,160/- as detailed in Annexure-A to the plaint. The respondent-bank on account of its misconduct and negligence did not take proper care of the lockers and the strong room which were built at the back of the building. According to the appellants, the alleged strong room was made up affair and it was made only of plywood, whereas it ought to have been made of iron and concrete. All the 44 lockers in the alleged stro