Saturday, 23 February 2019

Whether court should decide any controversy on basis of under certificate of posting?

 As regards sending of intimation under certificate of posting is concerned, it is to be noted that the date on which the said articles were dispatched under said certificate of posting is not very clear from the document at Exhibit-101/1. The Courts have been slow in recognising as a proper mode of service any article sent under certificate of posting. In Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao Vs. E.V. alias Balasaheb Vikhe Patil and others - MANU/SC/0599/1994 : AIR 1994 SC 678 it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a certificate of posting is very easy to be obtained and the same is not reliable mode of delivery. Similarly, in Shiv Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others - MANU/SC/0731/1994 : (1994) 4 SCC 445 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it did not feel safe to decide the controversy in question on the basis of certificates of posting. It was further observed that it was not difficult to get such postal seals at any point of time. The Court refused to rely upon the certificate of posting therein as a mode of proper service. Reference can also be made to the decision in MANU/SC/0253/2006 : (2006) 1 SCC 407 -(State of Maharashtra Vs. Rashid B. Mulani), wherein it has been observed in clear terms that a Certificate of posting obtained by a sender is not comparable to a receipt for sending a communication by registered post. No record is maintained by the post office either about receipt of the letter or of the certificate issued and in absence of such record, a certificate of posting would be of very little assistance. It was also observed that the ease with which such certificates can be prepared by affixing an antedated seal is a matter of concern.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal Nos. 1945 and 1946 of 2009

Decided On: 13.12.2018

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.  Sarjerao Pataloji Kshirsagar and Ors.


Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: 2019(1) MHLJ 943.
Read full judgment here: Click here
Print Page

No comments:

Post a comment