JUDGEMENT : 1. This is defendant's second appeal against the decree in First Appeal No.166 of 1951 and No.205 of 1951 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Bhopal, arising out of a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ashta. 2. The facts of the case are found in the judgments of both the Courts below and need not be repeated. There is no denying of the fact on both sides that the defendant asked for a loan of the plaintiff's mare for the purpose of its use as a decoration in a marriage procession and it was taken to the defendant's place and while it was being returned to the plaintiff it became restive and shied and galloped off and foundered on a wire fencing and was injured seriously. It is also admitted on both the sides that the mare was in possession of one Ghanshyam after it was injured. The main points in dispute in both the Courts below were whether the mare was entrusted to the defendant and was injured while in his possession and secondly what were the damages suffered by the plaintiff. The first point was found against the defendant and on the second the trial Court assessed the damages at Rs.800 while they were enhanced by the first appellate Court to Rs.1140. 3. These very findings are now challenged in this Court and the only contention made is that the evidence has been misapprehended fey both the Courts below and particularly by the learned Additional District Judge. It is not necessary to repeat the principle that concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless there is misapprehension of evidence or misappreciation resulting in serious prejudice to the party aggrieved. In this connection reference may be made to (1) Saraswathi Madthi v. Rama Sketty, AIR 1950 Mad 39 and (2) Kesho v. Tukaram, AIR 1951 Nag 8. 4. (His Lordship reviewed the evidence and continued.) This finding of fact of both the Courts below, therefore, cannot be interfered with. 5. The next point is as regards the damages suffered by the plaintiff. The trial Court assessed them at Rs.800 only for reasons which -were not pleaded and the learned Additional District Judge applied his mind only to the aspect which was discussed by the trial Court. 5. The next point is as regards the damages suffered by the plaintiff. The trial Court assessed them at Rs.800 only for reasons which -were not pleaded and the learned Additional District Judge applied his mind only to the aspect which was discussed by the trial Court. There is no doubt that the animal was purchased by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,140 and it was with him for a few months before it was bailed oat to the defendant. Under S.151, Indian Contract Act, "in all cases of bailment the bailee is bound to take as much cure of tie goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed." In the case on hand the bailor-plaintiff had disclosed to the defendant-bailee that the animal was restive and somewhat vicious and as such had to be taken proper care of. It was, therefore, the bailee-defendant's duty to take special care of the animal till it reached and was re-delivered to the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have discussed the evidence as to how the animal was injured while it was being taken back to the plaintiff's place and have found that Balwant was negligent and allowed it to be taken by one Hafiz while on its way back to the plaintiff's house and at this time it shied, threw him down, galloped off and foundered on a wire fencing. Now the defendant-bailee, under the law, is not only liable for the damages suffered or injury caused, when the goods was in his custody but also in the possession of his servant or agent. The trial Court has discussed this question at length and the reasoning is accepted by the learned Additional District Judge. The law has been correctly applied and the defendant is correctly found to be liable for the loss caused by the deterioration of the goods bailed viz: the mare. 6. It appears, however, that the learned Additional District Judge did not apply the correct law in the matter of the measure of damages to be awarded to the bailor, the plaintiff. Under the law, the bailee is liable for the loss caused by the deterioration and not for the whole loss of the goods unless it is altogether lost. 6. It appears, however, that the learned Additional District Judge did not apply the correct law in the matter of the measure of damages to be awarded to the bailor, the plaintiff. Under the law, the bailee is liable for the loss caused by the deterioration and not for the whole loss of the goods unless it is altogether lost. In the case on hand, it would appear that it is not the case of the plaintiff that the animal died because of the injuries caused to it. It appears that the plaintiff based his claim for the full value and the learned Additional District Judge accepted the measure because it was proved that the animal was with the defendant or his friend Ghanshyam who took it in his possession after it was injured and there was exchange of hot words between the parties. The fact, however, stands that the animal is not lost altogether but it has deteriorated due to the injuries caused to it and in such cases the measure of damages is the extent of deterioration. It is no doubt true, as has been found by both the Courts below, that Ghanshyam had taken it in his possession and it is still with him. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant refused to deliver it back. In fact it appears that the defendant was ready to give it back to the plaintiff and as such the measure of damages is the difference between the original value of the animal and its value after the injuries were treated and the mare recovered from their effect. None of the Courts below seems to have applied its mind to this aspect of the ease and both of them seem to have fallen into an error. There is evidence on record from Yakub Alikhan Veterinary Doctor (D.W.1) that the present value of the animal would be Rs.250 only. It is also said by him that there has been no permanent damage to the mare though it has been incapacitated for its normal use. Abdul Hamid (P.W.14) another Veterinary Doctor, who was examined by the plaintiff, has no doubt stated that there has been serious damage to the left front leg and at the back of the thigh which cannot be cured without an expert treatment and the mare is useless for a ride. Abdul Hamid (P.W.14) another Veterinary Doctor, who was examined by the plaintiff, has no doubt stated that there has been serious damage to the left front leg and at the back of the thigh which cannot be cured without an expert treatment and the mare is useless for a ride. The fact stands that the animal is not altogether lost and though cannot be used for a ride, can be used for other purposes, its value having deteriorated from Rs.1,140 to Rs.250 only. In the circumstances, the damage to which the plaintiff is entitled is the difference between these two values viz: a sum of Rs.890. It is, therefore, found that the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.890 only as the damages for the deterioration of the mare bailed out to the defendant. 7. There is no other point pressed in this Court and the result is that the appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs against the respondent who shall bear costs proportionate to the success of the appeal and shall be paid the costs proportionate to the failure of the appeal. The decree of the lower appellate Court, together with the order for costs in the appeal as also in the suit, is modified and it is ordered that the plaintiff's claim to the extent of Rs.890 is decreed with proportionate costs against the defendant who shall bear his own costs in view of the extreme position taken by him. Counsel's fees will be up to the maximum, if certified in time. Appeal partly allowed.