Mr. Ramesh delivered his gold ornaments to a jeweller, Mr. Arun, for polishing. Arun kept the ornaments in the locker of his shop and locked the premises before leaving. Unfortunately, during the night, some thieves broke into the shop and stole the ornaments. When Ramesh asked for the return of his ornaments, Arun expressed his inability and stated that he had taken as much care of the goods as he would have taken of his own property. Ramesh, however, claimed compensation for the loss on the ground that the ornaments were delivered under a contract of bailment and that the bailee was bound to return them. Decide, under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, whether Arun is liable to compensate Ramesh.

According to Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, bailment is the delivery of goods from one person to another for a specific purpose, upon a contract that the goods shall be returned once the purpose is completed.\nSection 151 provides that the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed as a man of ordinary prudence would take of his own goods.\nFurther, Section 152 states that if the bailee has taken such reasonable care, he is not responsible for loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods.\nIn the instant case, Ramesh entrusted his ornaments to Arun, a jeweller, for polishing. Arun locked them securely in his shop’s locker. However, a theft occurred at night, and the ornaments were stolen despite the precautions taken. Ramesh demanded compensation, but Arun refused, claiming that he had exercised ordinary care.\nHence, it is clear that Arun has taken reasonable precautions by locking the ornaments in the locker and securing the shop. The theft was beyond his control and does not amount to negligence. Therefore, Arun cannot be held liable to compensate Ramesh for the stolen ornaments.