The Central Government is not liable for the loss of an uninsured postal article.

JUDGMENT : These are two connected appeals which arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiff Ramji Lal against the first two defendants viz. Dominion of India through the Secretary, Central Government (Post and Telegraph Department), New Delhi and the Dominion of India through the General Manager, E.I.R. Calcutta, and the third defendant Firm Ananda and Co.

2. It was alleged that the plaintiff had sent ten harmoniums worth Rs. 950/- for defendant No. 3 from Aligarh to Howrah per P.W.B. No. 024768 on 15-24949 (weight 3 Mds. 20 Seers - 10 cases, Railway freight to pay Rs. 34/15/-). The railway receipt was endorsed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 3 and was despatched by a V.P. Letter for Rs. 950/- addressed to the third defendant on 18-2-1949. The said V.P. Letter was not delivered to the third defendant in the normal course but was tampered with and was cut open and the railway receipt was taken out from it, and, subsequently, the envelope was given back to the plaintiff in a damaged condition by open delivery on 18-6-1949 without the aforesaid railway receipt. The plaintiff was subsequently informed by the railway administration that the consignment in question was received at Howrah on 18-2-1949 and was delivered to the third defendant on 23-2-1949. The defendant No. 3, however, denied taking delivery of the aforesaid consignment, and it was admitted by the second defendant that the consignment was taken by one Jumerati. The plaintiff prayed for recovery of Rs. 950/- together with interest etc. on account of the loss of the aforesaid harmoniums sent by him to defendant. No. 3.

3. Defendant No. 3 contended that it was not at all liable and that the delivery of the consignment was never taken by it.

4. The first two defendants pleaded the bar of S. 80 of the C.P.C. It was contended by the first defendant that the V. P. Cover did not contain any railway receipt nor was it removed by or in collusion with the employees of the postal department; that S. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act barred the suit; and that, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. Defendant No. 2 contended that the plaintiff had no right to sue after the railway receipt had been endorsed in favour of defendant No. 3; that the defendant's servants were not guilty of negligence or misconduct; that the goods had been delivered to the consignee and that the suit was barred by S. 77 of the Indian Railways Act. It was further contended that the consignor had declared Rs. 120/- to be the value of the goods in the railway receipt and his claim for Rs. 1026/87- was not maintainable.

5. The trial court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief as against the third defendant, and the suit against it was dismissed. It decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,026/8/- with future and pendente lite interest at the rate of 3% per annum simple as against the first and second defendants.

6. The decree of the trial court was affirmed by the lower appellate court. The court below held that the railway receipt had been consigned to "self". The plaintiff had made an endorsement thereon in favour of the third defendant. Since the latter could not take delivery of the goods, the plaintiff continued to remain the owner of the consignment and, as such, he was entitled to institute the suit in appeal. It further held that notices under S. 80 C.P.C. had been served on the first and second defendants. The court below repelled the contention of the first defendant that the suit was barred by S. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. The facts found by the court below are that the plaintiff had sent the railway receipt under a V.P. Letter which was duly registered. It did not reach the addressee and was received back by the plaintiff who took an open delivery thereof with the railway receipt missing from it. It was found by the court below that the envelope contained the railway receipt when it was dispatched and therefore, it could not be said that the en