Judgment :- The Second appeal was admitted on the following Substantial Question of law. viz. non-issue of Section 80 CPC notice. But the learned counsel for the first respondent showed Ex.A1 notice which is in conformity with Section 80 CPC and therefore the substantial question of law raised by the appellant fails and on this score alone, the second appeal could have been dismissed. 2.However, the learned counsel for the appellants would urge that there was a gross violation of the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed that this may be considered as a substantial question of law. 3.The claim arose in this manner. The first respondent sent two parcels to the 2nd respondent by post insuring the value of the articles contained therein each for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The covers were sent for Trichirappalli Post Office to the Banjara Hills Post office, when the parcels reached the destination, it was found that one of the parcels appeared to be tampered and when they delivered the other parcel, the addressee opened the other parcel before the postal authorities and found that where there should have been one Diamond earring, there were two twenty-five paise coins. In fact, in the other parcel also, there were only two twenty-five paise coins instead of a Diamond earring. 4.The courts below on a consideration of the evidence found that the tampering of the parcel should have happened only after the articles were entrusted to the post office. It appears that the articles were sealed and handed over to the post office. The postal authorities weighed the articles and then put those sealed covers in a larger cover and sealed them since they were insured articles. The courts below considered the condition of the parcels,the non-alignment of the seals and hold that the tampering had happened while the parcels were in the custody of the postal authorities. The main objection raised is with regard to the responsibility of the post office and the condition subject to which the parcels are received. The courts below considered the condition of the parcels,the non-alignment of the seals and hold that the tampering had happened while the parcels were in the custody of the postal authorities. The main objection raised is with regard to the responsibility of the post office and the condition subject to which the parcels are received. Clause 165 of Post Office Guide reads as follows: "Articles which can be insured: Registered letters, value payable registered letters, registered parcels and value-payable registered parcels may be insured up to the value of Rs.600/- at such branch post offices, and up to the value of Rs.10,000/- at such other post offices, as are authorised, to accept articles for insurance and for such post offices as are authorised to deliver insured articles, provided that in no case shall such value exceed the real value of the contents of the article insured; provided also that articles containing gold coin or bullion government currency notes or bank notes or any combination of these shall be insured for the actual value of the contents. For the purpose of this rule, papers, such as securities, legal documents, etc. may be regarded as having a real value. Clause 175 of Post Office Guide reads as follows: Responsibility of Post Office: There will be payable to the sender of an insured postal article compensation not exceeding the amount for which the article has been insured, for the loss of the postal article, or any of its contents, or for any damage caused to it in course of transmission by post; provided that the compensation in no case exceeds the value of the article or any of its contents lost or the amount of the damage caused, and provided that, in the case of loss, the sender furnishes full particulars of the contents of the postal article and their values; provided, also that no compensation will be payable- There are various sub-clauses, only the relevant sub-clauses shall be extracted here: 175(b) where there has been fraud on the part of the sender or addressee; (c) where the insured article has been delivered to the addressee, and he has signed and returned the receipt therefor; (g)where the insured article contains Government currency, notes, bank notes, gold coin or bullion or any combination of these, and has not been insured for the actual value of the contents. (j) where the insured article contained anything the transmission of which by post is prohibited; Clause 177 of Post Office Guide reads thus: Cases in which Insurance is compulsory- (1) Coin, bullion, platinum, precious stones, jewellery, government currency notes or bank notes and articles of gold or silver may be sent by post only in insured letters, insured parcels. If a letter or parcel presented to the post office window is found to contain any such object of value, it will not be accepted for transmission by post, unless the sender insures it; and, if an uninsured article manifestly containing any such object of value is found in course of transmission by post it will be either intercepted and returned to the sender, or forwarded to destination and delivered to the addressee subject to the payment of a fee of two rupees. The payment of this fee will not impost any liability on the Central Government. Explanation- In this rule, the expression"articles of gold or silver" includes articles made wholly or partly of gold or silver, but not coins and electro or other plated goods. The expression "coin" does not include cut counterfeit coin remitted on behalf of the Issue Department of the Reserve bank o India and Mints. The expression "currency notes" does not include defaced notes, i.e. notes from which the signature has been cut off after cancellation, remitted on behalf of Issue Department of the Reserve Bank of India. The expression "jewellery" includes watches the cases of which are entirely or mainly composed of gold, silver or platinum. (2) Insurance is also compulsory for at least the amount specified for recovery from the addressee in the case of all value payable articles (other than value payable letters containing Railway receipts, bills, invoices, documents, etc. of no intrinsic value and value payable packets containing printed papers, book etc. sent under book packet rates) on which the amount speciied for recovery exceeds Rs.100. Clause 178 of Post Office Guide reads thus: Declaration of value of gold coin or bullion or gold ornaments or articles of gold. In the case of articles containing gold coin or bullion or gold ornaments or articles of gold Government currency notes or bank notes or any combination of these the sender should delare on the article the value of the contents at the time of despatch. In the case of articles containing gold coin or bullion or gold ornaments or articles of gold Government currency notes or bank notes or any combination of these the sender should delare on the article the value of the contents at the time of despatch. Clause 202 reads thus: General Prohibitions- The transmission by the Inland post of the undermentioned articles is prohibited:- (1)Anything which is sent in contravention of any enactment for the time being in force. (2) Any indecent or obscene printing, painting, photograph, lithograph, engraving, book or card, or any other indecent or obscene articles. (3) Any letter, postcard, newspaper, packet or parcel having on it or on the cover thereof, any words, marks or design of an indecent, obscene, seditious, scurrilious threatening or grossly offensive nature. Clause 202(9): Gold coin or bullion or both of a value exceeding Rs.10,000/-. The value for the purpose of this sub-clause, clause 165, item (g) of the last proviso to clause 175, and clause 178 shall be the market value on the date and at the place of posting. As regards the Indian Post Office Rules, Rule 81 and Rule 83 read thus : Rule 81: There shall be payable to the sender of an insured postal article compensation not exceeding the amount for which the article has been insured, for the loss of the postal article or any of its contents or for any damage caused to it in course of transmission by post: (b) Where there has been fraud on the part of the sender or addressee; (c) where the insured article has been delivered to the addressee and he has signed and returned the receipt therefor;....... (g) where the insured article contains gold coin or billion or both and has not been insured for the actual value of the contents; (j) where the insured article contained anything the transmission of which by post is prohibited. Rule 83; Coin, bullion, platinum, precious, stones, jewellery, currency notes and articles of gold or silver may be sent by post only in insured letters or insured parcels. Rule 83; Coin, bullion, platinum, precious, stones, jewellery, currency notes and articles of gold or silver may be sent by post only in insured letters or insured parcels. If a letter or parcel presented at the post office window is found to contain any such object of value, it shall not be accepted for transmission by post, unless the sender insures it; and if an uninsured article manifestly containing any such object of value is found in course of transmission by post, it shall be either intercepted and returned to the sender or forwarded to destination and delivered to the addressee subject to the payment of a fee of two rupees. The payment of this fee shall not impose any liability on the Central Government. 83-A: In the case of articles containing gold coin or bullion, the sender should declare on the article the value of the contents at the time of despatch. 5.Reliance was also placed on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this court in UNION OF INDIA BY POSTMASTER-GENERAL,MADRAS VS. AMJAD MIYAN (1972 II MLJ 363) wherein it is held that the liability of the Union Government in the case of any misdelivery, non-delivery or loss of an insured article must be decided in accordance with the acts and rules framed in this behalf and that otherwise there will be no liability. It is also held that the liability is not something in the abstract, but it is basically compensation payable by the Government representing the value of the article. The insurance is merely a provision for the compensation for the actual value of the content of the registered parcel and nothing more. In this decision, the learned Judges had considered in detail the history of the postal service right from the times of the East India Company. The learned Judges also held that the plaintiff must prove that he had sustained a real loss ascertainable in terms of money and the main emphasis is upon the value of the article, representing the loss or damage sustained by the plaintiff, in terms of money value. The learned Judges also held that the plaintiff must prove that he had sustained a real loss ascertainable in terms of money and the main emphasis is upon the value of the article, representing the loss or damage sustained by the plaintiff, in terms of money value. That was the case, the claim was made for loss of Rs.5,000/-currency which was sent in an insured cover and the courts below held that the case of the plaintiff was unbelievable and it was also noticed by the learned Judges that the weight referred to in the postal cover showed that the plaintiff could not have placed Rs.5,000/- in the cover sent for despatch. In the said case, 50 numbers of 100 rupees currency notes of the year 1960, kept in the insured cover was weighed and it showed that it weighed 92 grams whereas as per the records the weight of the insured article was 70.022 grams. For all these reasons on facts and circumstances and in law the Division Bench held in favour of the postal authorities. 6.In this case, though serious doubts were raised regarding the probability of the jeweller sending a Diamond earring by post without even receiving the value therefor and the suspicious circumstances with regard to the non-examination of addressee and also the fact that the edges of the cover could have been damaged because the insured articles are thrown at random at the post office. These are the pure questions of fact further that both the courts below have considered the evidence of the postal authorities in detail. There is no dispute that one of the parcel when received by the Banjara Hills Post Office was found in a damaged condition. The postal authorities are not able to explain how the parcels sent inside the insured cover was damaged. It is also relevant to note that when the parcels given by the jeweller viz. the respondent was weighed, it weighed 30 grams. Two 25 paise coins will not weigh 30 grams and therefore when the parcel was given to the postal authorities, it must have held something heavier than two 25 coins. Therefore, the probabilities of the case tilt towards tampering being done when the parcels were in the custody of the postal authorities. the respondent was weighed, it weighed 30 grams. Two 25 paise coins will not weigh 30 grams and therefore when the parcel was given to the postal authorities, it must have held something heavier than two 25 coins. Therefore, the probabilities of the case tilt towards tampering being done when the parcels were in the custody of the postal authorities. The other ground urged for the appellant was the fact that the parcel was insured only for Rs.10,000/-, when even according to the evidence of P.W.1, the value of a Diamond earring was some thing more. Even here, it is not possible to help the appellant because when the article is insured, the claim that is made is only for the actual loss or damage that he sustained or the marked value of the article lost and the the maximum amount which can be fixed by the post-office Regulations. Further, the plaintiff must also prove as held in the above decision that he sustained a real loss ascertainable in terms of money. The factual discussion of the courts below showed that the pilferage had taken place after the articles were handed over to the Post-Office. The fraud that was alleged by the postal authorities was not proved and the lower appellate court, in fact has observed that, if the seals of both the articles had been intact, then there was no occasion for the addressee to open it in front of the postal authorities themselves. It is also observed that from the endorsement of the Banchara Hills Post Office, it is seen that the seals in the Insurance Cover looked suspicious. These seals are not affixed by the plaintiffs, but by the postal authorities. 7.In these circumstances, it is difficult to hold in favour of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant made a valiant efforts to apply the rules to save the appellant from loss. Though it was not the question, that was framed by this court at the time of admission, but since it was principally a question of law, the learned counsel was permitted to raise this question. According to appellant the jewels were undervalued, because they were worth more than Rs.10,000/- Clause 165 of Post Office Guide only says that the insured value shall not exceed the real value and nothing else. According to appellant the jewels were undervalued, because they were worth more than Rs.10,000/- Clause 165 of Post Office Guide only says that the insured value shall not exceed the real value and nothing else. Clause 175 of the Post Office Guide fixes responsibility for payment not exceeding insured value Sub clause (b) does not apply since fraud has been proved. Sub clause(c) does not apply since addressee opened the parcel before the authorities. Sub clause (g) does not apply because jewellery is not one of the categories mentioned. It was urged that 'bullion' will include jewellery but clause "177" uses "bullion" & "jewellery" so the rule makers have deliberately or otherwise omitted "jewellery" in clause 'g' and as it stands the rule does not apply. Clause 177 of the Post Office Guide has been complied with, since the article has been insured. Clause 202(g) does not apply since "jewellery" is not one of the items mentioned. Rules 81 and 83 of Indian Post Office Rules do not apply for similar reasons. So it is found that the decision of the courts below are not contrary to the rules that have been extracted above. 8.In those circumstances, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.