UNION GOVT OF INDIA Vs. RAJAMOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants in O.S. 4 of 1986 on the file of Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai are the appellants in the above appeal. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 41,554/- with future interest. The learned Subordinate Judge, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, passed a decree on 14-3-1987 for Rs. 34,354/- with proportionate cost in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants have filed the above appeal.

(2.) The facts which are required for the disposal of the appeal are briefly stated hereunder: According to the plaintiff, he was running Eversilver Fancy Circulation business for the past 15 years at Mayiladuthurai. In the course of his business, he used to send VP letters and VP Insured parcels for value from Mayiladuthurai to his customers at different places in India according to the rules and regulations under the Indian Post Office Act through the Head Post Office at Mayiladuthurai. The plaintiff had sent VP letters for value and VP insured parcels for value with due reference to the amounts to be received by him on delivery of the said goods from the addressees as detailed in the list annexed along with the plaint. He paid the registration charges, money order commission, etc. on the day of registration itself at the Post Office. The Head Post Office at Mayiladuthurai, who received the VP letters and VP insured parcels had sent all of them to the respective addressees through various Post Offices under their control. Under law, the Post Office and Postal Officials are bound to deliver the same and receive the value as detailed in the list as against each VP letters and VP insured parcels and pay the amount to the plaintiff. In case if they are not received by the addressees, the Postal Officials are bound to return the VP letters and VP insured parcels to the plaintiff. If there is loss or damage in the transmission or delay, the plaintiff should be paid the value and damages as against each item. On enquiry, it is ascertained that all the VP letters and VP insured parcels mentioned in the list annexed along with the plaint had been delivered to the respective addressees by the concerned Post Offices and all the amounts collected therefrom are illegally detained by the Postal Officials unnecessarily. The plaintiff had also given written complaints and reports to the concerned departments periodically, once in a month, three months and six months from 5-12-1982 and demanded the amount due to him. The Postal Officials, who informed the plaintiff that suitable action is being taken for the due payment of his amounts, have not yet paid the suit amount. The plaintiff then issued suit notice to the defendants under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure on 27-5-1985. A reply dated 26-6-1985 was received from the Director to the effect that action is being taken to settle the claim of the plaintiff, but still the suit amount is not yet paid even though a portion of the amount claimed in the suit notice was paid subsequent to the notice. With these averments, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for Rs. 41,554/-.

(3.) The fourth defendant filed written statement wherein it is stated that the plaintiff has been booking articles by VP letters and parcels, both insured and uninsured at the Head Post Office, Mayiladuthurai for different addressees at various destinations all over India and VP money orders are received by the plaintiff. The plaintiff will usually receive such money orders at the average rate of 20 money orders per day. A good number of articles sent by the plaintiff by insured VP parcels are seen to have been received back by the plaintiff, either as undeliverable or unclaimed and redelivered to the plaintiff. Without producing the valid proof viz., the wrappers of the articles containing the addresses of the addressees in respect of items 1 to 353 in the schedule, the claim of Rs. 34,354/- put in the plaint is totally unsustainable. As per the provisions of Rules 101 and 102 of the Indian Post Office Rules, the plaintiff ought to have preferred the complaints affixing the enquiry fee, by means of postage stamps at the rate of 50 paise for each case within six months from the date of posting of the articles. The plaintiff has not resorted to the remedy as envisaged under Rules 101 and 102 of the Indian Post Office Rules and as such as per Section 34 of the Indian Post Office Act, the Government shall not incur any liability, unless and until the sum under value payable postal articles have been received from the addressees. In this case, the plaintiff has not proved as to whether the insured VP parcels or letters have been received by the addressees and as such, the claim in the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 34 of the Indian Post Office Act. For the first time, the plaintiff has preferred the complaint only by way of his notice dated 27-5-1985 and such a notice cannot be construed as complaint as envisaged under Rules 101 and 102 of Indian Post Office Rules. With these contentions, the fourth defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.