Union of India vs Sumerchand Jain

K. L. Pandey, J.

This revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is directed against a judgment and decree dated 5 March 1964 whereby the civil Judge, Class I, Seoni empowered u/s 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958, allowed the non-applicant''s claim for Rs. 65, being the value of a parcel of cloth made over to the postal authorities at Seoni for transmission and delivery to the addressee at Sagar, which was misdelivered.

It is not disputed that, on 19 August 1960, a parcel addressed to one Lala Sahib Manikchandji C/o Bhagwandas Shobhalal Jain, Sagar, was registered in the Seoni Post Office, that a receipt No. 181 was issued therefor, that the parcel was wrongly delivered to the Sub Divisional Officer (P. W. D.) B. R., Narsimhapur, on 22 August 1960, that the non-applicant made a complaint to the postal authorities, that the receipt No. 181 was taken away from him for the purpose of the enquiry and that he was informed on 24 September 1960 that the parcel had been misdelivered. It is also admitted that a notice u/s 80 of the CPC was duly served on the applicant.

The non-applicant averred that he had sent the registered parcel containing cloth worth Rs. 65 and claimed that the parcel be returned or its value be paid because it was misdelivered on account of the negligence and carelessness of the postal authorities. That claim was unsuccessfully resisted inter alia on the ground that, u/s 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the applicant was exempt from any liability for misdelivery.

In support of this revision, it is strongly urged that, in the circumstances of this case, the applicant was altogether free from any liability for misdelivered of the parcel because it was expressly exempted from such liability by section 6 of the Act. That section reads:

The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default.

It is obvious from the section that, while the first part relates to the liability of the Central Government for loss, misdelivery, or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in the course of transmission, the second part deals with such liability of officers of the Post Office. There is between the two a distinction While the Central Government is wholly exempt from any liability except in so far as it is expressly undertaken by or under other provisions of the Act, every officer of the Post Office is also exempt "unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default". Since no claim has been made against any officer of the Post Office, it is unnecessary to consider whether he misdelivered the parcel in question fraudulently or by any wilful act or default attributable to him. The learned counsel for the non-applicant was not able to show in what manner the Central Government had expressly undertaken such liability as contemplated by section 6 ibid. That being so, it must be held that under the aforesaid section 6, the applicant is wholly exempt from liability for misdelivery of the parcel in question.

In Union of India (UOI) Vs. Firm Ram Gopal Hukum Chand and Others, ., Dhavan J. was considering cases of value payable parcels. Post Master General and Another Vs. Ram Kripal Sahu and Another, . Petition allowed. there was an insured cover which had been delivered for transmission by post'' It is hardly necessary to say that, in such cases, different considerations arise by virtue of other provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. It is true that, for purposes of delivering postal articles or receiving money payable therefor, the Post Office may be the agent of the sender or the addressee- The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay South, Bombay Vs. Ogale Glass Works Ltd., Ogale Wadi, . and Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. P.M. Rathod and Co., . but that is not the same thing as saying that there is in such cases, a contract between the sender and the Post Office or that the postal service is a common carrier. In the last-mentioned case, the Supreme Court did not say that, in the matter of transmission of postal articles, the jural relationship is contractual in nature. Having regard to the provisions of the Act" it appears to me that the Post Office is a branch of the public service and the liability for misdelivery of a postal article like the one here can be supported only on the basis of express provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder As indicated earlier, not only no such provision was shown but section 6 of the Act clearly and expressly exempted the Central Government from liability for what was admittedly a case of misdelivery.

The result is that the revision succeeds and is allowed The judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court are set aside and the suit is instead dismissed. Costs throughout shall follow that event. Hearing fee in this Court Rs. 30.