Report No. 38
109. Section 34 and cases of non-delivery.-
Originally, this was the only change that we had proposed. But, regarding liability where the article is not delivered, the following suggestion was made in a comment1 on our draft Report sent by a State Government.
"In the opinion of this Government, the proposed amendment is a very reasonable one, but it might go further. This Government thinks that not merely in the case where the postal authorities have delivered an article sent by Value Payable Post, to the addressee, but also in the case where they have failed both to deliver the article to him and to return to the sender they should be made liable under a direct provision made in section 34".
The matter was discussed before us in detail.
The assumption made in the comment (that the Government is not liable) is correct.2 And we think that this position is not fair.
In our view, in the following case also, the State should be liable, namely,-
"where the article has neither been delivered to the addressee nor returned to the sender in the original condition".
In this respect, a query was raised before us, as to the following points-
(a) whether this amendment does not make an inroad on the general provision in section 6, and
(b) whether it is proper to make the Government liable for the value. We have reached the conclusion, that to prevent hardship, the proposed change is desirable, particularly because fairly heavy charges are levied for Value Payable Post, which include charges under several heads3.
1. S. No, 170 (Suggestion of a State Government).
2. Cf. Union of India v. Ramji Lid, AIR 1965 All 184 (186) paras. 8-10.
3. See Rule 96(2), Indian Post Office Rules, 1933.
Back
