UNION OF INDIA Vs. FIRM MOHANLAL RAMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Civil Second Appeal arising out of a suit for compensation filed by the Firm Mohanlal Ramchandra against the Union of India for the recovery on Rs. 1,000/- under the following circumstances. There was a Firm Doongar Mal. Mohan Lal at village Dholipal, District Ganganagar. the proprietor of which was Mohanlal. Ridhkaran was the Munim of that Firm. He was sent to Kesinga (District Kalihandi, Orissa) to sell gram. After selling the gram, he sent the sale-proceeds to the said Firm by post. It is alleged that on 18. 7. 1957, he sent Rs 2,500/- by insured a registered parcel and another sum of Rs. 2,500/-by a registered letter. Delivery of both these articles was taken of from the post office concerned. The said Firm, however, found that the insured parcel contained Rs. 1,500/- and on further scrutiny, it was found that seals that had been affixed on the insured parcel had been changed and that on the cloth cover of that parcel there was tampering inasmuch as the words 'insured for Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand & five hundred) only', written in copying pencil at the top of the cover were altered to read 'insured for Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand & five hundred) only. ' All this came to the knowledge of Mohanlal on 1. 8. 1957 when the said Munim came back from Orissa. On 3. 9. 1957 Mohanlal transferred his claim to the plaintiff Firm Mohanlal Ramchandra of Ganganagar after receiving Rs. 1,000/ -. After serv-ing notice under Sec. 80 C. P. C. on 9. 9. 1957 to the defendant, the plaintiff brought the suit on 4. 3. 58 for the recovery of Rs. 1,040/- out of which Rs. 40/- were claimed as interest. The written statement on behalf of the Union of India was signed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, North Rajasthan and also by the Government Pleader who had filed a Vakalatnama signed by that officer on behalf of the Union of India. The defendant denied the material allegations. The suit for recovery of Rs. 1,000/- was decreed by the trial court. The appeal of the Union of India to the District Judge, Ganganagar failed. Hence this second appeal.

(2.) IN this appeal, a preliminary point has been urged by the plaintiff-respondent that the appeal on behalf of the Union of INdia has been filed by Shri Raj Narayan, the Assistant Government Advocate of Rajasthan and the Advocate was not duly authorised to file the appeal. Shri Raj Narayan has relied on S. R. O. (Statutory Rules & Orders) No. 3950, dated 5. 12. 1957 of the Government of INdia by which the Government Advocates of High Court have been appointed to be the Government Pleaders for purpose of O. 27, R. 8 (b) C. P. C. in relation to any suit by or against the Government, not being of the nature specified in that notification. He has also contended that at the time of the filing of the appeal he had filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of the Union of INdia signed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, North Rajasthan Division, Bikaner who, according to him, was duly authorized to represent the Union of INdia. At the time of arguments he also filed a memorandum disclosing that he had instructions to appear and act on behalf of the Union of INdia and was duly authorised to do so by the Superintendent of Post Offices, North Rajasthan Division, Bikaner. It is to be examined whether in view of the contentions raised by Shri Raj Narayan, the preliminary objection is to be rejected.

(3.) NOW, let me, proceed to examine the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The sender, as shown on the cover of the parcel (Ex. 2) is Ridh Karan. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that he alone could maintain the suit, as under Sec. 33 of the Act, compensation is payable by the Central Government to the sender of the insured article for the loss of the postal article or its contents. In this connection, mention is made of Sec. 14, the relevant part of which runs, as follows - "14.- Post Office marks prima facie evidence of certain facts denoted.- In every proceeding for the recovery of any postage or other sum alleged to be due under this Act in respect of a postal article - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) the person from whom the postal article purports to have come shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to be the sender thereof. "