(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, dated 8th August, 1955, dismissing his suit for recovery of Rs. 24,000 from the Union of India, defendant 1, on account of non-delivery of eight insured covers.
(2.) Shortly put, the facts are these. The plaintiff, Lakshmi Narain, carries on business under the name and style of Lakshminarain Ramnarain. Ram Narain is his brother. This firm carries on four types of business, distillery, foreign liquor, shellac and out-still. Defendant 2 is another firm called Parsadi Lal Ram Das, carrying on business at Lalitpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In April 1950, defendant 2 sold to the plaintiff Mahua for distillation worth Rs. 42,000. The consignment was despatched to Manindragarh and Chirmuri. Kalika Prasad, the Manager of the plaintiff, paid defendant 2 in cash Rs. 17,000 at the time of purchase, and the balance of Rs. 25,279/13/6 remained due by the plaintiff, The latter remitted this amount in nine insured covers on 9th May, 1950. Each of the eight out of the nine insured covers contained 30 currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination each. The ninth cover contained Government currency notes of various denominations of the total value of Rs. 1279 and postage stamps worth as. 13-6- p. These covers were made over to the Postmaster of the post-office at Lalpur in the town of Ranchi for being delivered to defendant 2 at Lalitpur. The said insured covers were delivered to defendant 2 on 12th May, 1950, but on opening them it was found that eight out of the nine covers contained no money but only waste papers. One cover, however, contained currency notes for Rs. 1279 and postal stamps worth annas 13-6 p. In other words a sum of Rs. 24,000 was removed from the insured covers, and it is this sum which the plaintiff seeks to recover from the Union of India on the ground that this loss was due to misconduct on the part of postal authorities, for which the Union of India was liable.
(3.) The Union of India filed written statement traversing all the averments in the plaint. It denied liability for payment of the amount. It was denied further that currency notes of the value of Rs. 24,000 had been delivered to defendant 1 or its servants or agents. It is further denied that the contents of eight of the insured covers were remove ed in course of transit while in the custody of postal authorities. It was also pleaded that notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not properly served.