T.U.MEHTA - (1.) An interesting question which arises to be determined in this Revision Application is how far the Government of India is exempt from the liability arising out of loss mis-delivery or delay of or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post resulting from fraud or willful act or default of an officer of the Post Office in view of the provisions contained in sec. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 which is hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) Short facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff is a firm manufacturing and selling cloth at Ahmedabad. On 9th February 1965 it sent three Registered Post parcels containing cloth through Gandhi Road post office. The first parcel which was bearing No. 56 contained cloth worth Rs. 765.42. The second parcel bearing No. 68 contained cloth worth Rs. 285/and the third parcel bearing No. 64 contained cloth worth Rs. 804.94. When the parcels were presented to the addressees they refused to accept the delivery as they were found tempered with and were also short in weight. They were therefore returned back and when offered to the plaintiff the latter demanded open delivery. The open delivery of parcels Nos. 63 and 64 was given on 25th February 1965 and that of the remaining parcel No. 56 was given on 5th March 1965 At the time of taking open delivery the following facts were noticed: (i)There was shortage of cloth worth Rs. 501.75; (ii) The weight of the parcels was less than the original weight taken at the time when they were handed over to the post office. (iii) Some postage stamps affixed to the parcels were found missing. (iv) Weight of parcel No. 63 was found more than the original weight while the weight of remaining two parcels was less than the original weight. (v) It appeared that the parcels were opened and restiched. The case of the plaintiff is that all these parcels were tempered with while they were in custody of the post office and that some of the members of the staff of the post office have stolen away or mis-appropriated the cloth which is found short. The plaintiff firm after taking open deli. very of the parcels wrote two letters and several reminders to the postal authorities. Ultimately the postal authorities sanctioned compensation of Rs. 75/to the plaintiff but the plaintiff did not accept the same and finally gave a notice under sec. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code on 26th September 1966 claiming damage of Rs. 626.89. Since no reply to this notice was received by the plaintiff the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the recovery of the total amount of Rs. 673.00. The case was tried and disposed of by the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad where the suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 1552 of 1968.
(3.) One of the questions which were raised before the Trial court on behalf of the petitioners-defendants was whether the postal department would be liable for any loss or damage to the parcels in question in view of the provisions contained in sec. 6 of the Act. In this connection the contention of the petitioners-defendants is that sec. 6 of the Act exempts the Government from any liability arising on account of any type of loss mis-delivery delay of or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post and therefore even if it is believed that loss or damage in question is the result of some willful got committed by any of the officers of the post office the present suit cannot succeed.;