Skip to content


Anandilal Kashiprasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1983)1GLR704
AppellantAnandilal Kashiprasad
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi) and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....written a letter, exhibit 30, dated february 26, 1974-being claim notice. another letter being a post card exhibit 31 was written on february 26,1973. the letter exhibit 30 has admittedly reached the railway administration on march 1, 1973, that is, one day after the prescribed period of limitation under section 78b of the indian railways act. however, the controversy pertains to post-card exhibit 31. this post-card has been despatched on february 26, 1973 and it has reached the nibinagar post office on february 28, 1973 and the postal mark shows the delivery stamp of the nibinagar post office as that of 8-30 a. m. of february 28, 1973. however, the superintendent of the western railway has put the inward stamp on this post-card as that of march 1, 1973 and on this basis it was argued.....
Judgment:

A.P. Ravani, J.

1. In this revision application the short point which arises is as to on which date the notice as required under Section 78B of the Indian Railways Act was served upon the Railway Administration. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the goods consigned on August 31, 1972 from Kankaria station of the Western Railway to Nabinagar Road Station on the Western Railway were not at all delivered.

2. Therefore the plaintiff had written a letter, Exhibit 30, dated February 26, 1974-being claim notice. Another letter being a post card Exhibit 31 was written on February 26,1973. The letter Exhibit 30 has admittedly reached the Railway Administration on March 1, 1973, that is, one day after the prescribed period of limitation under Section 78B of the Indian Railways Act. However, the controversy pertains to post-card Exhibit 31. This post-card has been despatched on February 26, 1973 and it has reached the Nibinagar post office on February 28, 1973 and the postal mark shows the delivery stamp of the Nibinagar post office as that of 8-30 a. m. of February 28, 1973. However, the Superintendent of the Western Railway has put the inward stamp on this post-card as that of March 1, 1973 and on this basis it was argued before the trial Court that the post-card cannot be said to have reached the Railway office on February 28, 1973. The say of the Railway Administration was that the day, on which the Superintendent of the Western Railway puts his inward stamp on the post should be considered as the date of receipt of the post-card by the Railway. This argument found favour with the trial Court. It is difficult to understand as to how such a view can be taken. In view of the provisions of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, ordinarilly is will be presumed, and it should be presumed that the date of delivery stamp affixed by the postal office is the date on which the post would have been delivered to the addressee. In this case it is not shown by the Railway Administration that though the delivery stamp was that of 8-30 a. m. on February 28, 1973, it was not received by them on the same day or that there is nothing to show that the postal authorities would not have delivered the post in the ordinary course of business. There is no dispute on the point that if the post-card is held to have been received by the Railway Authorities on February 28, 1973, notice will have to be held as served within prescribed period and therefore, legal and valid. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not agree with the reasoning and finding given by the trial Court. I hold that the post-card should have been presumed to have been received by the Railway Authorities on February 28, 1973, the day of which the postal mark is there on the post-card.

3. In above view of the matter the judgment and order passed by the trial Court in Regular Suit No. 3279 of 1975 of the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad, is quashed and set aside. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //