UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIRD defendant consigned vetivert oil worth Rs. 11,440. 00 with the fourth defendant for carriage and delivery to the fifth defendant at Delhi. He then encashed the bill with the plaintiff, Union Bank of India. Plain tiff sent the bill by registered post to the second defendant, Punjab National Bank at Delhi, along with the g. C. note issued by the carrier. Some unknown persons intervened and received the bill and notes from the postal authorities in the name of the second defendant and took delivery of the consignment from the fourth defendant as if delivery was taken by the consignee. Defendants 1 and 6 are the Union of India and the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs. The suit for realisation of the amounts from the defendants was decreed only against the carrier (fourth defendant), who remained ex parte, and dismissed as against others directing costs of defendants 2,3 and 5 to be paid. Plaintiff has come up in appeal.

(2.) THOUGH records were manipulated as if the bill and notes were received by the second defendant Bank and delivery was taken by the fifth defendant consignee, the evidence is that everything was forged by some unknown interveners in the names of defendants 2 and 5. At the time of arguments, the further claim was only against defendants 1 and 6.

(3.) THE question, therefore, is only whether defendants 1 and 6 are also to be made liable. If at all they could be made liable, it could only be on the ground that delivery of the postal article was made to a wrong person enabling delivery of the consignment being taken. 5. S. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act is sufficient answer to the claim against defendants 1 and 6. THE wide immunity, which the Crown enjoys in England, does not prevail in India. In India, postal service of the government is not a sovereign function. THE post office is not a common carrier. Liability of the Government of India is not contractual, but only statutory. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. MIS. P. M. Rathodand Co. (AIR 1959 SC 1394) it was held that whatever be the jural relationship between the seller and the post office in respect of carriage of goods sent by the seller under V. P. P. system, it becomes an agent of the seller for the recovery of the price and if it fails to recover the price and deliver the goods, it is liable for damages to the seller. That decision by itself may not be a direct authority for the position that the jural relationship arises only by contract and is not a statutory liability. Debananda Dora v. Union of India and others (AIR 1965 Orissa 118) held that even the contractual obligation, while accepting insured articles, is only as provided by the statute. If Commissioner of Income tax, Delhi v. Mis. P. M. Rathodand Co. (AIR 1959 SC 1394) is read along with Mothi Rungaya Chetty v. Secretary of State for India in Council (ILR 28 Madras 213) and Union of India v. Firm Ram Gopal Hukum Chand and others (AIR 1960 Allahabad 672), it may be possible to infer by implication that there is a contractual relationship between the sender of the V. P. P. and the post office. We are not concerned with that question. Even by accepting an insured article, no contractual obligation is undertaken. THE liability, which the postal department accepts, is a statutory liability of a bailee. THE liability of the government is to be found within the four corners of the Act and Rules. Otherwise, there is no liability. THE postal department is liable for the tortuous acts of its officials committed during the course of their duty with regard to the postal articles entrusted to their care.