The matter was taken before the Full Court of Small Causes by the respondent firm.
2500/. It was lost in the companyrse of transit.
The appellant denied its liability for the claim on the ground that under s.6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, hereinafter called the Act, read with Rule 1 g of the rules framed thereunder, its liability companyld arise only if the plaintiff had declared the actual value of the companytents on the date of the insurance.
The respondents filed a suit for recovery of about 2475/ as companypensation under the insurance effected by the Union of India, the present appellant, represented by its postal department.
As a wrong declaration had been made there was numbervalid and enforceable companytract.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 31, 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision Application No.
2500/ .
The case of the plaintiffs in evidence however, was that in addition to the price paid for the gold companyns a sum of Rs.
Profit was added to this at 1 and the total value came to Rs.
The parcel was insured for Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
L. Sanghi and Janendra Lal, for the respondent.
On the following day the parcel companytaining.the gold companyns was handed in at Ramwadi Post Office, Bombay for transmission to the addressee.
M. Singhvi, Ram Panjwani and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant.
2223 of 1966.
1263 of 1961.
2465 14 0 as companymission agents for transmission and delivery to their companystituents at Bikaner.
On June 15, 1955 the respondent firm purchased gold companyns for an aggregate price of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judge ment of the Bombay High Court made in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
9 1 6 had been spent as postal charges and the companyt of insurance, packing , companymission and brokerage.
