UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM SARUP SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is one of the defendants' revision directed against the judgment and decree of the courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for a sum of Rs. 1605. 25 towards principal amount and Rs. 394. 75 on account of interest at the rate of 12 % per annum.

(2.) PLAINTIFF Ram Sarup Saini (respondent No. 1 herein) was working with M/s Atlas Cycle Industries, Sonepat. He contributed towards contributory provident fund under Account No. 150/2856. He resigned from, the service and at the time of resignation, a sum of Rs. 1637,75 was lying outstanding in his provident fund account which also included contribution of the employer. He made an application to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, for release of the amount. On his request, two money orders in favour of the plaintiff amouting to Rs. 1605. 25 were sent to him at his address in the village Fazilpur Tehsil and District Sonepat. Instead of making the payment to the plaintiff, the Postmaster, Fazilpur, made payment to defendant No. 5 i. e. Ram Sarup Jat son of Chhotu Ram. Plaintiff, therefore, filled suit for the recovery of the amount as well as interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum against the petitioner, Postmaster General, Ambala and against the defendants. Suit was contested by the defendants. Trial Court decreed the suit and passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants No. 1, 3 and 5 jointly and severally Decree of Rs. 394. 75 on account of interest was also passed in favour of the plaintiff. Trial Court took the view that defendant No. 5 alone is liable to pay interest as he utilised the amount of money order. Union of India as well as State of Haryana and Ram Sarup son of Chhotu, defendant No. 5, filed appeal before the District Judge, Sonepat. Appeal filed by Ram Sarup Jat was dismissed with costs whereas in appeal filed by Union of India and State of Haryana it was held that State of Haryana is not liable to pay any amount and, therefore, appeal of Union of India was dismissed. This decree is being challenged by Union of India in this civil revision.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that under Section 48 (d) of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (for short the Act), Union of India is not liable to pay the amount. In order to appreciate the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to notice Section 48 (d) of the Act which is as under :