Back
1964 Supreme(Ori) 97
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R. L. Narasimham, C. J. And R. K. Das, J.
DEBANANDA DORA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - Respondent
Civil Revn 318 Of 1963
Decided On : NOVEMBER 16, 1964
R.N.SINHA, S.N.SINHA
The Post Office is not a 'carrier' within the meaning of Article 30 or 31 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The liability of the Post Office for loss or damage to insured postal articles is purely statutory and not contractual.
Headnote:
LIMITATION ACT - ARTICLE 30, 31 - INDIAN POST OFFICE ACT, 1898 - SECTIONS 6, 33 - POST OFFICE NOT A CARRIER - SUIT FOR COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF INSURED POSTAL ARTICLE - LIMITATION - ARTICLE 65 OR 120 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1908, APPLIES.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff sent an insured parcel containing two gold ornaments by post. One of the ornaments was missing when the parcel was delivered to the addressee. Plaintiff filed a suit for compensation against the Union of India, representing the Postal Department, more than one year after the date of loss or damage of the packet.
Finding of the Court:
The Post Office is not a 'carrier' within the meaning of Article 30 or 31 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The liability of the Post Office for loss or damage to insured postal articles is purely statutory and not contractual. The appropriate article of the Limitation Act applicable to a suit for compensation for loss or damage to an insured postal article is the latter part of Article 65 or Article 120 of the First Schedule.
Issues: Whether the Post Office is a 'carrier' within the meaning of Article 30 or 31 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
Ratio Decidendi: The definition of 'common carrier' in the Carriers Act, 1865, suggests that a carrier is a person engaged in the business of transporting for hire property from one place to another by land or inland navigation. The Post Office carries insured parcels and other articles for all persons indiscriminately. If it is to be held to be carrying those articles for hire, it would necessarily follow that it is a common carrier. However, the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, show that the Postal Department is not a common carrier and that it does not enter into any contractual obligations while accepting letters and packets for transmission by post. The liability of the Post Office for loss or damage to insured postal articles is purely statutory and not contractual.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court set aside. Judgment and decree of the learned Munsif restored, with costs throughout.
NARASIMHAM, C. J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal and revision arise out of the appellate judgment of the Subordinate judge of Sambalpur reversing the judgment of the Munsif of Bargarh and dismissing the plaintiff's suit for compensation. As the appellant petitioner was not sure whether a second appeal would he, he took the additional precaution of filing a civil revision also. Both the appeal and revision are dealt with in this judgment.
( 2 ) THE facts found are these. The appellant delivered a parcel weighing 211/2 tolas containing two gold ornaments at the Sub-Post Office, Bargarh, on 16-6-1958 and insured the same for Rs. 1,000/ -. The addressee was one G. Kamayya Dora, village Bhairipuram, P. O. Sompeta in the district of Srikakulam in Andhra State. When it was delivered to the addressee it was noticed that one of the gold ornaments was missing and in the acknowledgment form the weight of the packet was shown only 18 tolas. After some correspondence with the postal authorities and an abortive attempt to start a criminal case the petitioner instituted the suit under appeal on 24-4-1961, mainly against the Union of India, representing the postal Department, claiming damages to the extent of Rs. 665/- for the loss of one of the two gold ornaments weighing about 31/2 tolas
( 3 ) THE learned Munsif decreed the claim for Rs. 388. 50 np. On appeal the learned subordinate Judge while agreeing with the trial court as regards the facts of the case including the loss of a gold ornament weighing 31/2 tolas, held that the suit was barred under Article 30 or 31 of the Limitation Act, because the Post Office was a "carrier"; and the suit was admittedly not brought within one year from the date of loss or damage of the packet.
( 4 ) THUS, the sole point for consideration is whether, when a packet is sent by insured post the Post Office is a "carrier" within the meaning of article 30 or 31 of the Limitation Act of 1908.
( 5 ) THE expression "carrier" has not been defined in the Limitation Act, but from the definition of the expression 'common carrier' occurring in the Carriers Act 1865, it is reasonable to infer what 'carrier' means. In the Carriers Act 'common carrier' is "a person other than Government engaged in the business of transporting for hire, property from place to place by land or inland navigation for all persons indiscriminately" it follows from the aforesaid definition that a carrier is a person engaged in the business of transporting for hire property from one place to another by land or inland navigation and if he engages in this business for all persons indiscriminately, he becomes a common carrier.
( 6 ) SO far as the Post Office is concerned, it carries insured parcels and other articles for all persons indiscriminately. If it is to be held to be carrying those articles for hire, it would necessarily follow that it is a common carrier -- though it may not be a common carrier for the purposes of the Carriers Act, because government is expressly excluded from the scope of the definition in that Act.
( 7 ) THAT leads to the most important question for decision namely whether the postal Department, while performing their duties of carrying mails, insured articles etc. perform governmental functions subject of course to the provisions of the indian Post Office Act, 1898.
( 8 ) THE English law on the subject has been stated in Halsbury, III Edition, Volume 30, page 148 (paragraph 239) as follows:
"the post office is a branch of the public service and accordingly the post-master General is not a common carrier. Acceptance of letters by him, and packets for transmission through the post does not give rise to any contractual relationship between him and the owner of the letter or packet. " this view was based mainly on the well known decision of Lord Mansfield in whitfield v. Le Despencer, (1778) 2 Cowp 754. The reasons given for taking this view may be quoted in the very words of Lord Mansfield: "the Postmaster has no hire: enters i
