UNION OF INDIA Vs. N GOPALDAS AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second appeal was admitted on the following Substantial Question of law. viz. non-issue of Section 80 CPC notice. But the learned counsel for the first respondent showed Ex.A1 notice which is in conformity with Section 80 CPC and therefore the substantial question of law raised by the appellant fails and on this score alone, the second appeal could have been dismissed.

(2.) However, the learned counsel for the appellants would urge that there was a gross violation of the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed that this may be considered as a substantial question of law.

(3.) The claim arose in this manner. The first respondent sent two parcels to the 2nd respondent by post insuring the value of the articles contained therein each for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The covers were sent for Trichirappalli Post Office to the Banjara Hills Post office, when the parcels reached the destination, it was found that one of the parcels appeared to be tampered and when they delivered the other parcel, the addressee opened the other parcel before the postal authorities and found that where there should have been one Diamond earring, there were two twenty-five paise coins. In fact, in the other parcel also, there were only two twenty-five paise coins instead of a Diamond earring.