Madras High Court
Unknown vs K.G.Sarangapani Chettiar & ... on 3 March, 2023
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
and
C.M.P.No.13962 of 2000
S.A.No.1499 of 2000:
1.Union of India,
Postal Department,
Chief Postmaster, New Delhi.
2.Union of India,
Postal Department,
Postmaster General,
Trichy Region.
3.Union of India,
Department of Post,
Rep., by Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kumbakonam Division.
4.Union of India,
Rep., by Postmaster,
Head Post Office,
Kumbakonam.
___________
Page 1 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
5.Union of India,
Rep., by Secretary to Government,
Central Govt. Secretariat,
New Delhi. ... Appellants/Appellants/
Defendants 1 to 4 & 6
Vs
1.K.G.Sarangapani Chettiar & Brothers,
Rep., by Managing Partner,
G.Shyam Sundar,
75, 76, Big Bazaar,
Kumbakonam. ... 1st Respondent/
1st Respondent/Plaintiff
[Memo in USR 2616 is recorded as per order
dated 13.06.2019]
[R1, who is namely G.Shyam Sundar substituted
vide order dated 27.09.2019 made in C.M.P.(MD)
No.5933 of 2019 in S.A.No.1499 of 2000]
2.M/s.Dhamani & Co.,
1181B, Kuthchamageni,
Chandni Chowk,
New Delhi. ... 2nd Respondent/
2nd Respondent/5th Defendant
Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside
the judgment and decree dated 22.09.1999 made in A.S.No.11 of 1998 on
the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, confirming the judgment and decree dated
27.11.1995 made in O.S.No.66 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Kumbakonam.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
For Appellants : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar
Senior Panel Counsel,
Government of India
For R1 : Mr.V.K.Vijayaragavan
2nd Respondent : Exparte (vide order dated 12.09.2019)
S.A.No.2064 of 2000:
M/s.K.G.Sarangapani Chettiar & Brothers,
Rep., by its Partner, G.Shyam Sundar,
75, 76, Big Bazaar Street,
Kumbakonam. ... Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff
[Memo in USR 2616 is recorded as per
order dated 13.06.2019]
[1st appellant, who is namely G.Shyam Sundar
substituted vide order dated 27.09.2019 made in
C.M.P.(MD) No.5610 of 2019 in S.A.No.2064 of 2000]
Vs.
1.Union of India,
Postal Department,
Rep., by Chief Postmaster,
New Delhi.
2.Union of India,
Postal Department,
Rep., by Postmaster General,
Trichy Region.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
3.Union of India,
Rep., by Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kumbakonam Division, Kumbakonam.
4.Union of India,
Rep., by Postmaster,
Head Post Office,
Kumbakonam.
5.M/s.Dhamani & Co.,
1181B, Katchamahajini,
Shanthini Chowk, New Delhi.
6.Union of India,
Rep., by Secretary to Government,
Central Govt. Secretariat,
New Delhi. ... Respondents/Respondents/
Defendants
Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside
the judgment and decree dated 22.09.1999 made in A.S.No.3 of 1998 on the
file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, confirming the judgment and decree dated
27.11.1995 made in O.S.No.66 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Kumbakonam.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
For Appellant : Mr.V.K.Vijayaragavan
For RR1 to 4 & 6 : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar
Senior Panel Counsel,
Government of India
2nd Respondent : Exparte (vide order dated 12.09.2019)
COMMON JUDGMENT
1.1. The first respondent in S.A.No.1499 of 2000/appellant in
S.A.No.2064 of 2000 filed a suit for damages for the loss of goods sent by
post. The suit was partly decreed by directing appellants 1 to 4 in
S.A.No.1499 of 2000 to pay a compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the first
respondent in S.A.No.1499 of 2000. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants
in S.A.No.1499 of 2000 filed an appeal in A.S.No.11 of 1998 and the first
respondent in S.A.No.1499 of 2000, aggrieved by the negatived portion of
the decree, filed another appeal in A.S.No.3 of 1998. Both the appeals were
dismissed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, defendants 1
to 4 and 6 in the suit filed S.A.No.1499 of 2000. Aggrieved by the
disallowed portion, the plaintiff filed S.A.No.2064 of 2000.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
1.2. In this second appeal, for the sake of convenience, the term
'appellants' will refer the appellants in S.A.No.1499 of 2000 and
respondents 1 to 4 and 6 in S.A.No.2064 of 2000; the term 'first respondent'
refers to the first respondent in S.A.No.1499 of 2000 and the appellant in
S.A.No.2064 of 2000; and the term 'second respondent' refers to the second
respondent in S.A.No.1499 of 2000 and the 5th respondent in S.A.No.2064
of 2000.
1.3. The first respondent filed a suit seeking recovery of damages of
Rs.66,512/- together with 18% interest from appellants 1 to 4 herein.
According to the first respondent, he had been engaged in jewellery
business and he requested the second respondent herein to send him 10 kgs
of silver. The second respondent sent the silver ingots by post in Parcel
Nos.0353, 0354, 0355 and 0356 from Delhi General Post Office. As per the
invoice of the second respondent, a sum of Rs.65,000/- was already paid to
the second respondent towards the costs of the silver ingots sent to the first
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
respondent. On 13.09.1990, it was informed by the 4th respondent that four
insured parcels were received by his office for delivery to the first
respondent. The representative of the first respondent viz., Ramesh went to
the post office and met the Beat Postman. On seeing the parcels addressed
to the first respondent, the said Ramesh requested the 4th respondent to make
open delivery. There was no response from the postal authorities. After
receiving the parcel, the said Ramesh returned to his shop, wherein it was
found that there were corrections in the weight noted in the parcels. Though
the stamps affixed therein correspond to the higher silver weight of 2½ kgs,
on seeing the corrections in the weight, the Managing Director of the first
respondent and the said Ramesh went to the office of the Superintendent of
Post Offices, Kumbakonam and gave a statement to that effect. The parcels
were not at all opened till that time. In the next day, a complaint was lodged
to the Postmaster and the first respondent requested for open delivery of the
goods, but the same was refused by the Postmaster. Hence, telegrams were
sent to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kumbakonam and Postmaster
General Trichirappalli narrating the facts. Since the complaint lodged by
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
the first respondent was not met with proper response, the first respondent
was constrained to file a suit for recovery of damages against the appellants
and the second respondents.
2.1. The appellants herein filed a written statement and resisted the
suit. In the written statement, it was stated by the appellants that the first
respondent's representative had taken delivery of the goods and
acknowledged the same. Thereafter, it was not open to the first respondent
to seek open delivery of the goods. The suit was also resisted by the
appellants on the ground that the first respondent had no locus standi to
maintain a suit against the Postal Department and it was only the sender of
the goods viz., the second respondent is entitled to claim compensation, if
any, in respect of the insured articles.
2.2. According to the appellants, four parcels were sent by the second
respondent to the first respondent for an insured value of Rs.10,000/- each.
It was also contended by the appellants that if the insured value of the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
parcels was above Rs.8,000/- it would be delivered at the window of the
Post Office after intimating the same to the addressee. It was further
contended that on receipt of parcels at Post Office at Kumbakonam, an
information was sent to the first respondent to attend the Post Office and
take delivery of the articles.
2.3. It was further contended that the representative of the first
respondent viz., Ramesh after having satisfied with the outward appearance
of the cover, signed the delivery receipts and acknowledged the same as a
token of taking delivery. Since the parcels were taken delivery by the
representative of the first respondent without any protest, the first
respondent was not entitled to seek open delivery later on. It was also
pleaded by the appellants that since the insured value of the goods was only
Rs.40,000/- the first respondent cannot claim more than the insured value.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
3.1. On these pleadings, the parties went to trial. The Managing
Director of the first respondent was examined as P.W.1 and his brother was
examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the first respondent/plaintiff, 27
documents were marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.27. On behalf of the appellants,
the retired Delivery Clerk of Head Post Office, Kumbakonam was examined
as D.W.1. Two other official witnesses were examined as D.W.2 and D.W.3.
Two documents were marked on behalf of the appellants as Ex.B.1 and
Ex.B.2. The trial Court, on its part, appointed an Advocate Commissioner,
whose report came to be marked as Ex.X.1.
3.2. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidences available on record, came to the conclusion that the shortage of
weight in the insured article had taken place only when the postal article
was in the custody of the Postal Department and consequently, appellants 1
to 4 were liable to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the first respondent as
damages. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein filed an appeal in
A.S.No.11 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Judge cum Chief
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam. The first
respondent, aggrieved by the disallowed portion, filed A.S.No.3 of 1998 on
the file of the same Court. Both the appeals were heard together and the
first appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed
the appeals. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/defendants 1 to 4 and 6
filed second appeal in S.A.No.1499 of 2000 and the first
respondent/plaintiff preferred separate second appeal challenging the
disallowed portion in S.A.No.2064 of 2000.
4. This Court, at the time of admission of these second appeals,
formulated the following substantial questions of law:
No. S.A.No.1499 of 2000 S.A.No.2064 of 2000
Whether the first respondent On the facts and circumstances,
1 violated the provision of Clause disallowance of interest claimed by
175(g)-209(g) of the P.O. Guide the appellant for the wrongful loss
Part-I and hence he is not suffered is tenable in law.
entitled to get compensation.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
No. S.A.No.1499 of 2000 S.A.No.2064 of 2000
Whether the interpretation of the Whether the decree and judgment of
Rule 33 of the Indian Post Office Courts below vitiated by illegality
2 Act 1898 given by the first for not awarding amount for the
appellate Court as well as the actual loss suffered by the
trial Court are sustainable.” appellant?”
5. Heard the arguments of the learned Central Government Standing
Counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the first respondent.
Perused the typed set of papers and other relevant records.
6.1. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for
the appellants, by relying on clause 182 of Post Office Guide Part-I,
submitted that when the insured article has been delivered to the addressee
and he received the article without protest and signed the acknowledgement,
no compensation is payable for any damage allegedly caused to the articles
during postal transit. The learned counsel further submitted that in any case,
it is only the sender of the article is entitled to maintain a suit for recovery
of damages against the Post Officer, but however, the addressee is not
entitled to maintain a claim for damages.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
6.2. The learned counsel by relying on Section 33 of the Indian Post
Office Act, 1898 submitted that the liability of Union of India to pay
compensation for the loss of postal articles or its contents is restricted to the
sender of the postal articles and the addressee of the postal article is not
entitled to maintain a suit for damages.
7.1. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted
that the representative of the first respondent, on noticing the tampering of
the parcels, made a request to the officials of the Postal Department to effect
open delivery, but there was no response from them. Thereafter, a written
complaint was lodged to the Postal Department seeking open delivery of the
goods and the same was not acceded to. The learned counsel further
submitted that the evidences available on record clearly establish that the
shortage in the weight of the silver sent to the first respondent had taken
place only during postal transit and hence, the Postal Department is liable to
pay compensation for the same.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
7.2. The learned counsel, by relying on the judgment of the Patna
High Court in Post Master General Vs. Ram Kripal Sahu reported in AIR
1955 Patna 452, submitted that the Postal Department is liable to pay
compensation in case of loss to the article even to the addressee of the
parcel. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the
technical objection raised by the appellants based on Section 33 of the
Indian Post Office Act has to be rejected.
7.3. The learned counsel further submitted that the Courts below
ought not to have restricted the compensation amount to the sum insured.
The learned counsel further submitted that as per the weight noted in the
Post Office of its origin, the second respondent sent 10 kgs of silver to the
first respondent and hence, the appellants are liable to pay the entire value
of shortage of silver articles equivalent to the market value. Ex.A.1 is an
invoice of the second respondent dated 08.09.1990. The same was in the
name of the first respondent. The weight of the silver bullion was
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
mentioned as 9.944 gm. The value of the said silver bullion was mentioned
as Rs.64,512/-. It was further mentioned that the silver bullion was sent by
postal insured parcels in Receipt Nos.0353, 0354, 0355 and 0356. D.W.3 is
an official of the Postal Department, who weighed the parcels at Madras
Airport. He admitted that when he weighed the four parcels in question, he
found shortage of weight. He also produced the records maintained by him
regarding weighing of parcels at Madras Airport and the same was produced
as Ex.B.2. A combined reading of D.W.3's evidence and Ex.B.2 produced
by him would make it clear that there was shortage in the weight of the
postal articles sent by the second respondent to the first respondent and the
same was found at Madras Airport during postal transit. Therefore, the
Postal Department is answerable to the shortage in the weight of the articles
that had taken place when the article was in its custody.
8.1. The liability of the Postal Department to pay compensation is
covered by Section 33 of the Indian Post Office Act, which reads as follows:
“33. Liability in respect of postal articles insures. -
Subject to such conditions and restrictions as the [Central
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
Government] may, by rule, prescribe [the Central
Government] shall be liable to pay compensation, not
exceeding the amount for which a postal article has been
insured, to the sender thereof for the loss of the postal article
or its contents, or for any damage caused to it in course of
transmission by post:
Provided that the compensation so payable shall in no
case exceed the value of the article lost or the amount of the
damage caused.”
8.2. A reading of the above provision would make it clear that the
Central Government is liable for the loss of postal article or its contents or
for any damage caused to it in the course of transmission by post. The
provision also makes it clear that the Central Government is liable to pay
compensation to the sender of the article. There is no reference in the said
section that the Central Government is liable to pay compensation to the
addressee of the article.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
8.3. A Division Bench of this Court in Union of India by Postmaster
General, Madras Vs. Amjad Miyan reported in 1972-II-MLJ 363 had taken
a view that the liability of Central Government in case of loss of postal
article is statutory in nature and the same is not covered by any contract.
The relevant observation of the Division Bench of this Court is as follows:
“The liability of the Union Government in the case of
any mis-delivery, non-delivery or loss of the insured article or
V.P article is to be found within the four corners of the Act and
the Rules framed thereunder, otherwise there will be no
liability.”
Therefore, the liability of Postal Department to pay compensation for
the loss to the postal article is governed by statute viz., the Indian Post
Office Act.
8.4. Section 33 of the Indian Post Office Act makes it clear that in
case of loss to the postal article, only the sender of the article can claim
compensation from Union of India.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
8.5. The learned counsel for the first respondent vehemently
contended that the right available to the sender of the article can also be
extended to the addressee of the article and in this regard, he pressed into
service, the judgment of the Patna High Court in Ram Kripal Sahu cited
supra, wherein the Patna High Court observed as follows:
“Section 32(3), which is to be found in Chap. VI of the
Act, dealing with “Registration, Insurance and Value-payable
Post”, provides that “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.”
This provision therefore casts a duty upon the post office
to deliver the insured article, and the manner, place and time of
the delivery is to be determined the Director General of Post
Offices. Some stress was laid upon the provisions of Sec. 33
which prescribe that subject to such conditions and restrictions
as the Central Government may, by rule prescribe, the Central
Government shall be liable to pay compensation, not exceeding
the amount for which a postal article has been insured, to the
sender thereof for the loss of the postal article or its contents, or
for any damage caused to it in course of transmission by post,
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
in support of the argument that only the sender is entitled to
compensation or damage, as the case might be, and not the
addressee. This section, it is true, speaks of the sender and it
does not speak of the addressee. The mere omission of the word
‘addressee’, in my opinion, in this section is not enough to
disentitle an addressee to get redress in respect of an insured
article not delivered to him. The fact that certain Government
currency notes were despatched in an insured cover for delivery
to the plaintiff is enough to show that the plaintiff had beneficial
interest in the insured article; it was for his benefit that the
sender had entrusted to the post office the insured cover in
question for being delivered to him.”
8.6. As discussed earlier, a Division Bench of this Court has taken a
view that the liability of Central Government to pay compensation in case of
loss to the postal article is statutory in nature. In the light of the said
decision, we have to examine the relevant provision of law in Indian Post
Office Act. Section 33 of the said Act imposes liability on Central
Government to pay compensation only to the sender. The legislature in its
wisdom, had chosen to omit the word 'addressee'. When the relevant statute
confers right to claim compensation only to the sender of the goods, the
same cannot be extended to the addressee of the goods.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
8.7. In the case on hand, according to the first respondent, he already
paid the entire value of the articles to the second respondent and hence, he
had become owner of the goods. In case, the first respondent was not
supplied with the agreed quantity of silver bullion, it is always open to the
first respondent to proceed against the second respondent to whom he paid
the entire value of the silver bullion. Unfortunately, in the present case, the
first respondent claimed compensation only against appellants 1 to 4 and he
has not made any prayer as against the second respondent.
9.1. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court
in Union of India by Postmaster General, Madras Vs. Amjad Miyan cited
supra, that the liability of the Central Government to pay compensation has
to be found within the four corners of the Indian Post Office Act and the
Rules framed thereunder or otherwise there will be no liability, I am unable
to follow the view expressed by the Patna High Court. Therefore, I have no
hesitation in coming to a definite conclusion that under Section 33 of the
Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the first respondent herein is not entitled to
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
claim any compensation against appellants 1 to 4. As a result, the
judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside.
The substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission in
S.A.No.1499 of 2000 are answered accordingly in favour of the appellants
and against the first respondent.
9.2. In view of my answer to the substantial questions of law framed
in S.A.No.1499 of 2000, the substantial questions of law framed in
S.A.No.2064 of 2000 are answered against the appellant and the second
appeal filed by the first respondent is liable to be dismissed.
9.3. In the result,
(a) S.A.No.1499 of 2000 is allowed by setting aside the judgments
and decrees passed by the Courts below;
(b) O.S.No.66 of 1991 on the file of the Sub Court, Kumbakonam
stands dismissed;
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
(c) in view of allowing of S.A.No.1499 of 2000, S.A.No.2064 of 2000
stands dismissed;
(d) in the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order
as to costs; and
(e) C.M.P.No.13962 of 2000 is closed.
03.03.2023
NCC: Yes
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
abr
To
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
1.The Additional District Judge-cum-
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thanjavur at Kumbakonam,
2.The Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam.
3.The Section Officer, VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
abr
S.A.Nos.1499 and 2064 of 2000
03.03.2023
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
