UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHAMMAD NAZIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The stakes are not high in this appeal - it is valued at Rs. 1606-8-0 - but it raises two rather interesting questions. Does the post office when it accepts a postal article for transmission act as an agent of the sender of the article And where the postal article is sent from India to an addressee in a foreign country, does the government of that country act as a sub-agent for transmission of the article

(2.) The questions arise on the following facts. The respondent had instituted a suit in the court of Munsif, Moradabad, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1606-8-0 from the Union of India (Post and Telegraph Department) alleging that during the period from August 31, 1949 to September 17, 1949 the plaintiff despatched from the Moradabad City Post Office thirty value-payable parcels to addressees in Lahore and Rawalpindi in Pakistan, that they received the articles and paid the entire amount payable, but the defendant Union of India failed to pay the sum to the plaintiff. The Union of India in their written statement admitted that the aforesaid articles were despatched by the plaintiff as claimed and that their value was recovered in Pakistan, but the Union of India did not receive the sum from the Pakistan Government as the money order service between India and Pakistan remained suspended from September 19, 1949, and this was the reason why the sum could not be paid to the plaintiff. Reference was made to Section 34 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and it was claimed that the said provision absolved the Union of India from liability. Section 34 reads as follows:

(3.) It also appears from the written statement that the postal authorities had assured the plaintiff that his claim would be settled on receipt of the money from Pakistan after the money order service between the two countries was resumed.