JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a defendants second appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 5370.50 p. with pendents lite and future interest at 1% per mensem on account of damages for the loss of potatoes stored by the plaintiff in the defendants cold storage. The trial court decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 3385-50 p. with proportionate costs and pendents lite and future interest at 3% per annum. The lower appellate Court confirmed the decree. Hence this second appeal. 2. It is not disputed that the plaintiff had stored the alleged quantity, of potatoes in chamber No. 3 of the defendants cold storage in the month of April 1968 and that by the time the goods were due to be taken out on the expiry of the storage contract on 30th September, 1968 or immediately thereafter during October, 1968, the potatoes were wholly damaged. 3. The point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that according to the terms of the contract, there was no liability on the plaintiffs to compensate the plaintiff for the loss on account of defects in the potatoes when they were kept in the cold storage. The alleged defect in the potatoes was that they were Dagi although on the corbon copy of the receipt No. 384 for storage (Ext. A-2) relied upon by the plaintiff, it is said not only that the potatoes were Dagi but also that "Aloo me blite lag gaya hai is liye aloo kharab hone ki koi jimmedari nahi hai." The carbon copy of receipt No. 384 (Ext. A-2) does not bear the signatures of the plaintiff and from the perusal of the entire book Ext. A-2, it appears that the rubber stamp seals about the condition of the potatoes and the freedom of the appellants cold storage from liability whether on account of the condition of potatoes or on account of non-availability of Ammonia were indiscriminately put on each one of the receipts, inasmuch as one finds these stamps put not only on the carbon copies of the receipts that were issued but also on the unissued receipts. The plaintiff had denied that any such receipt was given to him. The agreement Ext. The plaintiff had denied that any such receipt was given to him. The agreement Ext. A-I which contains the signatures of the plaintiff does not contain any such note about the condition of the potatoes or the freedom of the cold storage from liability on account of the alleged bad condition of potatoes. It cannot, therefore, be said that the condition of the potatoes was bad when they were put into the defendants cold storage or that the defendant was not liable on that account to make good the loss suffered by the plaintiff. 4. It was then urged by the learned counsel that according to the contract Ext. A-I, the defendant was not responsible for the loss, if any, which occurred after 30th September, 1968, for condition No. 1 is specific on this point and shows that if the potatoes remained in the storage after 30th September, 1968 the defendant will not be responsible for any damages. In the present case a notice had been served by the defendant on 10th October, 1968 informing all the customers that if they do not remove the potatoes by 30th October, 1968, then the goods will be sold at whatever price was available for them or will be thrown away. 5. In a contract of this nature it cannot be said that the responsibility of a bailee ceases completely after the expiry of bailment. On the expiry of the period of bailment in case the bailee does not want to keep the goods any longer he has to inform the bailor to take away the goods within a time to be specified and if the goods are not taken away within that period of time, the bailee may dispose them of whether by sale or otherwise, but before doing that he has to serve proper notice of intended sale. In any case the bailee cannot say that he is not responsible for the safety of the goods bailed so long they are in his custody. The condition in the contract could not mean that the defendant could have left the goods to rot after 30th September, 1968 if they were not removed by that date. 6. In any case the bailee cannot say that he is not responsible for the safety of the goods bailed so long they are in his custody. The condition in the contract could not mean that the defendant could have left the goods to rot after 30th September, 1968 if they were not removed by that date. 6. In any case the point really does not arise in the present case for it is not the case of the parties that the potatoes were damaged on account of being kept in the cold storage after 30th September, 1968. The potatoes were already damaged by that date and the continued storage of them after 30th September, 1968 did not make any difference. No other point was pressed before me. The finding of the two courts below that the defendant was responsible for the damage to the potatoes appears to me to be correct and the amount of damages awarded is at the ruling rate on the date on which the potatoes were stored in accordance with condition No. 9 of the contract Ext. A-I. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.