Gokal Chand Mital, J. - (1.) M /s Amardeep Hosiery Factory had despatched an insured parcel on 26.10.1974 from Ludhiana Post Office in the name of Branch Manager State Bank of India, Shah Ganj, District Jounpur (U. P.). When the parcel did not reach the destination nor was it returned to sender, complaint was lodged with the postal department. The claim was rejected as time barred. Hence, suit was filed for the recovery of Rs. 1370.92 as the price of the goods sent under the insured parcel and interest totalling Rs. 1600/ -. The trial Court dismissed the suit after recording finding that since the insured goods were posted on 26.10.1974, the claim was lodged beyond three months from the date of posting and, therefore, in view of Rule 175(d) (wrongly mentioned as Section 175(d) by the trial Court) framed under (The Indian) Post Office Act, 1898 (hereinafter called the Act), the department was not liable to pay anything. On Plaintiff's appeal, the Learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit as prayed for with costs throughout after recording findings that proper pleas were not raised by the Defendant on the point decided by the Court below and secondly, the protection of the afore -quoted rule was not claimed in defence. This is revision by the Defendant.
(2.) AFTER considering the matter, one thing is clear from the Plaintiff's own case that for the loss of registered parcel booked on 26.10.1974, complaint with the post office was lodged on 21.6.1975. It is clear from the facts stated in the complaint itself that the complaint was lodged more than three months after the registered parcel was given to the post office. According to Rule 175(d) no compensation is payable in respect of an insured parcel unless the sender gives intimation of the loss within three months from the date of posting. The point which has been raised on behalf of the Plaintiff by Shri Hemant Gupta, Advocate, is that the aforesaid rule is beyond the rule making power given in Section 32 of the Act. Section 32 of the Act reads as follows: - 32. Power to make rules as to insurance: -(I) The (Central Government) may make rules as to the insurance of postal articles. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of of the foregoing power, such rules may - (a) declare what classes of postal articles may be insured under Section 30 ; (b) fix the limit of the amount of which postal articles may be insured ; (c) prescribe the manner in which the fees for insurance shall by paid. (3) Postal articles made over to the Post Office for the purpose of being insured, shall be delivered, when insured, at such places and times and in such manner as the Director General may, by order, from time to time appoint.
(3.) SECTION 31 of the Act empowers the Central Government to issue notification declaring in what cases insurance shall be required. Regarding them rules may be made under Section 32. According to the learned Counsel, Section 32 does not authorise to make a rule to limit the time under which claim for the non -delivery of the insured parcel has to be made and, therefore, Rule 175(d) is beyond the rule making power. Therefore, the limitation contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable under which three years would be the limitation for filing suit to recover damages for the loss of goods. In fact the vires of Rule 175 have been challenged on the ground that it has been framed beyond the scope of rule making power. In support of the argument, reference has been made to Section 35 of the Act under which rules can be made on the specified matters with regard to the transmission by post of valuable postal articles and in that behalf Rule 102 was framed fixing a limit of one year to lodge the complaint for non -delivery of the article for payment of compensation. The validity of Rule 102 came up for consideration before the Allahabad High Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Nazim, A.I.R. 1969 All. 675 (D. B.), and it was ruled therein that rule could be made only for the purposes specified in the section and since it was not provided therein to fix any limit of time for lodging the claim, it was held that the rule fixing one year's limitation was clearly beyond the scope of the rule making provision and was held invalid.;