074-NLR-NLR-V-25-DEEN-v.-THE-ATTONEY-GENERAL.pdf
( 333 )
Present: Schneider J.1923.
DEEN v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
152—C. R. Gatte, 3,271.
Parcel tended for transmission by post to Bangkok—Insurance fee paid—
No insurance to Bangkok—Insurance fee accepted by mistake by
postmaster—Parcel lost—Liability of Government.
Plaintiff tendered to a postmaster a parcel for transmission toBangkok, and 75 cents as .insurance fee. Parcels to Bangkokcould not be insured under the postal rules, but both plaintiff andthe postmaster were not aware of this. The parcel was lost incourse of transmission by post, and plaintiff brought this action forthe value of the parcel and the postage.
Held, that Government was not liable.
“ The plaintiff must be presumed to have had knowledge thatthe authority of the Government to enter into contracts of insuranceis defined by the Ordinance.”
“ By the provision of the Ordinance and the rules framed underit the plaintiff was referred to the Post Office Guide as to theextent and limits of the authority of the postmaster to enter into acontract for the insurance of his parcel to Bangkok.”
fj 1HE facts are set out in the judgment.
B. F. de Silva, for plaintiff, appellant.
Obeyesekere, C.C., for defendant, respondent.
September 3,1923. Schneider J.—
All the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are admitted.
The plaintiff-appellant tendered at the. Post Office in the Fort ofGalle a parcel for transmission by post to Bangkok in Siam, thecontents of which were declared by him to be precious stones of thevalue of Rs. 200. He holds PI dated January 3, 1922, which is a
( 334 )
1923. receipt for this parcel signed by the postmaster acknowledgingSchneider payment by the plaintiff of Rs. 2115 as postage, 75 cents as “ in-J- suraUce fee,” and that the insured value of the parcel was Rs. 200.
Dem v. The The parcel was lost in course of transmission by post. In this^General ao^°tt against the Attorney-General, the plaintiff seeks to recoverRs. 202 ■ 15 “ by way of compensation or damages.” It was allegedin the plaint that the parcel was insured “ against the risk of lossor damage in course of transmission by post.” The nature of theinsurance has not been traversed in the answer nor questioned bythe issues raided at the trial. It may, therefore, be assumed that ifthe parcel had been rightly insured, the risk insured against wasas stated in the plaint. The learned Commissioner dismissed theplaintiff’s action on the ground of mutual mistake on part of thepostmaster and of the plaintiff that parcels to Bangkok could beinsured under our postal rules governing insurance. The plaintiffhas appealed.
The contention on his behalf both in the lower Court and beforemo was that a contract of insurance had been entered into by thepostmaster on behalf of the Government and the plaintiff and thatthe fact did not matter that under the postal regulations parcelsto Bangkok were not insurable. The defence was that the post-master had no authority to enter into the contract. The decision ofthe appeal is governed by the provisions of the Ceylon Post OfficeOrdinance, 1908 (No. 11), and certain rules made under thatOrdinance.
Insurance is a contract of indemnity whereby the insurer under-takes to indemnify the assured in the manner and to the extent 'thereby agreed against loss. Assuming that the insurance wasrightly effected, the plaintiff, the assured in this instance, wasentitled to be indemnified only to the extent of Rs. 200, which wasthe amount for which the insurance was effected, his claim in excessof that sum is, therefore, clearly unsustainable upon the generalprinciple applicable to ordinary contracts of insurance; but thespecial provision in rule 227 of the rules relating to foreign post(Ceylon Post Office Guide) entitles him to claim a refund ofthe postage and registration fee in addition to the compensationpayable as insurance.
Section 34 of the Ordinance has adopted the general principleas to the payment of the indemnity in enacting what the liabilityof the Government shall be in cases of the loss of an insured article.
The plaintiff’s claim must, strictly speaking, be regarded as onefor the recovery of Rs. 200 as indemnity upon a contract ofinsurance entered into with the Government through its agent, thepostmaster in question, and for the refund of postage paid on a lostpostal article. That being so, it is incumbent on the plaintiff toshow that the agent acted within the scope of his authority inentering into the contract. He can rightly say that the postmaster
( 335 )
of a Post Office such as that at which he offered the parcel inquestion for insurance, being a Post Office at which parcels areordinarily insured, has authority to enter into contracts of insurance,and that such a postmaster is set out by Government as an agenthaving its authority for that purpose by being placed in thatofficial position. The fact that the postmaster had authority toenter into contracts of insurance is not disputed by Government; butwhat is denied is that the postmaster had no authority to enter into acontract of insurance of a parcel for transmission by post to Bangkok.This limitation of the genial authority of a postmaster to enter intosuclrcontracts must be brought to the knowledge or notice of theplaintiff before the Government can repudiate the contract enteredinto with the plaintiff by the postmaster on the ground that thepostmaster had acted ultra vires. The decision upon the appeal,therefore, turns upon the question of notice or knowledge. Everysubject is presumed to know the law. The plaintiff must, therefore,be presumed to have had knowledge that the authority of Govern-ment to enter into contracts of insurance is defined by the Ordinance,in seotion 8 of which it is enacted that the Government “ shall notincur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery, or delay of, ordamage to, any postal article in oourse of transmission by post,except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertakenby the Governor in Executive Council as hereinafter provided.”By virtue of that section the Government is protected fromincurring any liability not coming within the exception.
In several sections of the Ordinance provision is made for theGovernor in Executive Council making rules. Buies made underthose provisions when published in the Gazette have force “ as fullyas if they had been enacted in the Ordinance ” by virtue of section11 (1) (e) of the Interpretation Ordinance (No. 21). Certain rulesmade under the provisions of section 12 were published in GazetteNo. 6,324 of August 20,1909, at page 795 et seq. In rule 48 of theserules it is enacted that “ foreign parcels may be sent to such countriesand places as are shown in the Ceylon Post Office Guide and as arefrom time to time notified in the Post Office Daily List,” and inrule 62 it is enacted that “ insurance shall be available from theplace of posting- to destination for parcels addressed to any of thecountries and places and up to the limit of value shown againsteach in the foreign parcel post schedule.”
These rules, apart from the Ordinance, are clear indications of thelimitations as to insurance contracts. The reference to the PostOffice xGuide must put a person on inquiry. It is a publicationopen to the public. It must be regarded as an authoritative state-ment regarding the conditions under which any .postal contractsmay be entered into, and therefore as defining the limits placed uponthe authority of agents to enter into contracts regarding postalmatters.
1923.
Schneider
J.
Deen v. TheAttorney-General
( 336 )
1923.
Schneider
J.
Deen v. TheAttorney-General
In the Post Office Guide for 1922, under the head of “ ForeignParcel Post ” at page 82 is to be found the following: “ 222. Wherethe insurance system is shown as available to certain places only, alist of such places can be obtained on inquiry at the General PostOffice, Colombo, and only parcels addressed to those offices canbe accepted for insurance.” And under the head “ Foreign PostDirectory, Siam Parcel Post,” at page 167 it is stated : “ Parcelsare acoepted for the following places only, viz., Bangkok, &c.
“ Insurance.—Not available.
“ Remarks.—No compensation is paid in respect of loss or damageof parcels or their contents.”
'By the provisions of the Ordinance and the rules framed under itthe plaintiff was referred to the Post Office Guide as to the extent andlimits of the authority of the postmaster to enter into a contract forthe insurance of his parcel to Bangkok. If he had consulted thatpublication he would have seen that the postmaster had no authorityto enter into such a contract, and be cannot be heard to pleadignorance of the contents of the Post Office Guide in respect of theprovisions relating to Bangkok.
The appeal is dismissed, with costs.
Appeal dismissed.