History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.686.3

v4.c63.686.3

In doing so however he must not return it to one of several heirs, but to all or in the presence of all. The loss of a deposit may be due to the fact that the bailee consumes it by using it, or to the bailee's negligence or to his ignorance. In these cases the bailee was made to reimburse the bailor for the loss. But Kāt. (597)⁷⁷⁸ makes a difference, viz. when a bailee consumes the deposit by use he should be made to pay the price with interest, when he loses it through negligence he is to pay only the price (but without interest) and if he loses through ignorance, then he is to pay a little less (i. e. less by one-fourth) than the price. Vide Bṛ. (S B E vol. 33 p. 333 verse 11) and Nār. V. 8. If a bailor knowing the proposed bailee to be a careless man deposits his goods with him, the bailee is not liable even if the goods are lost from any cause whatever (Kāt. 599).⁷⁷⁹ If immediately on demand by the depositor the bailee does not return the thing deposited or it is lost after demand from any cause whatever (including act of God or king), the bailee has to return the thing or the price of the thing (when lost) and also is liable to be fined by the king in the same amount (Yāj. II. 66, Nār. V. 7). If the bailee makes use of the article bailed without the permission of the bailor, he should be fined by the king and should be made to return the thing bailed with interest (Yāj. II. 67, Nār. V. 8). In the Rāj. T. (VIII.