Postal deficit liability cannot be shifted to sender when articles were accepted and delivered without objection.

Postal liability for alleged deficit postage does not shift to the sender where franked articles were accepted without objection and delivered, and the statutory conditions for fastening liability on the sender are not met. Under the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, liability ordinarily rests on the addressee on delivery, while sender liability arises only in limited situations such as refusal, return, death, or inability to trace the addressee. Recovery is confined to sums lawfully due from the person liable under the Act, and the Post Office Guide provisions on franking conditions were not triggered because no breach of licence conditions was shown. The postal authority's own failure to verify correct postage at acceptance could not be used to recover the shortfall from the sender.

---

---

Issues: Whether the postal authorities could demand deficit postage from the sender after accepting the franked postal articles without objection and delivering them to the addressees, and whether the sender could be made liable under the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and the Post Office Guide.

Analysis: Liability under Section 11 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 primarily fastens on the addressee on acceptance of delivery, while the sender becomes liable only where the article is refused or returned, or where the addressee is dead or cannot be found. Section 12 permits recovery only of sums lawfully due from the person liable under the Act. The conditions in Clause 11(10)(xv) and Clause 34 of the Post Office Guide were not attracted because no breach of franking licence conditions was alleged. Clause 30(iv) required the accepting office to verify correct postage before dispatch, and the postal authority's own failure, coupled with its incorrect prior communication, led to the short payment. In such circumstances, the postal authority could not shift its own error onto the sender.

Conclusion: The demand for deficit postage from the sender was not sustainable and was rightly held illegal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where postal articles are accepted and delivered without objection, and the statutory conditions for fastening liability on the sender are absent, the postal authority cannot recover alleged deficit postage from the sender, particularly when the deficit arose from the authority's own mistake and failure to verify correct postage at the time of acceptance.

---