S.S.Dhavan, J. - (1.) These are two connected applications under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act which raise an important question of law relating, to the scope and extent of the liability of the Post Office for articles delivered to it for transmission by Value Payable Post (hereinafter called the V. P. P.). Both these revisions have been filed by the Union of India as the Government in charge of the Post Office concerned and it shall be referred to in this judgment as the Post Office.
(2.) In revision No. 774 of 1952, a Firm Rant Gopal Hukum Chand filed a suit against the Post Office with following allegations: On 11-5-48 the firm delivered four parcels to the Post Office at Mau Nath Bhanjan in the District of Azamgarh for transmission. Three of them were sent by registered post and were delivered to the addressees, in due course, and there is no dispute concerning; them. The fourth was sent by V. P. P. for a sum of Rs. 313/3/-. The plaintiff alleged that he never received the amount due on this parcel and began to make enquiries. He wrote to the addressee who informed him that they had received the parcel and had paid the amount to the Post Office. He made a complaint to the Post Office and was assured that the matter was under consideration. Ultimately, on 12-11-1950 he was informed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Varanasi Division, that any claim by him in respect of the parcel was time-barred. The plaintiff thereupon filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 370/- being the amount of the value of the article (Rs. 313/3/-), interest (Rs. 46/13/-) and costs of notice and correspondence (Rs. 10/-).
(3.) The Post Office contested the suit and denied all liability. It admitted the delivery of the parcel to it and its transmission for purposes of delivery. The written statement of the Post Office-is not a satisfactory defence. It does not disclose what happened to the parcel after it was entrusted to its custody, but paragraph 16 contains the noncommittal statement that "it appears from the plaint that the parcel in question was lost in transit and was not delivered to the actual addressee". Further, in reply to the plaintiff's allegations that the addressee had written that they had received the articles and paid the specified sum to the Post Office, paragraph 8 of the written statement contained the vague denial that this allegation "does not concern the defendant and is, therefore, not admitted". The statement does not disclose whether the parcel was delivered or not, or whether the amount specified by the sender was recovered by the Post Office on delivery or not. The Government also pleaded that the plaintiff's claim "is clearly time-barred under Section 116 item (B) of the Post and Telegraph Guide and was accordingly rejected by the postal authorities". I shall have to comment on this kind of defence presently.;