' This appeal is directed against the judgment of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South, dated 12-5- 1987, whereby he decreed the Respondent Nod's suit against the appellant for a sum of Rs,63,074 with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. The suit was also decreed against respondent No,3 for a sum of Rs,35,000 with interest @ 18% per annum, but no appeal has been filed by respondent No,3.
2. Respondent No,1 had filed a suit stating that it had imported 'imitation glass stones' from M/s. Philimpex Ltd. London under a Letter of Credit through M/s, Habib Bank Ltd. For a value of 1708-42 This import was covered under an Insurance Policy issued by respondent No,3. The consignment was despatched through post parcel from London for Karachi and such intimation was given to the appellant. Respondent No,1 accordingly contacted Senior Superintendent of the appellant as well as the appellants in April, 1980. Respondent No,1 was informed that numbers of the parcels were shown in advance list received by foreign post from London Post Office included the parcel in question, but the Postal Authorities had withheld the delivery of the same to respondent No,1.
Respondent No,1 paid the import price to Habib Bank Ltd. And retired the documents under the L.C.
At a cost of Rs,63,074 and presented the same before the Postal Authorities at Karachi, but they did not deliver the parcel to respondent No,1 and gave him evasive replies. Respondent No,1 also gave notice of claim to respondent No,3, but they also rejected his claim on the grounds which are far from satisfactory. Hence the suit.
3. The appellant and respondent No,2 filed a joint written statement resisting the claim of respondent No,1. It was admitted that the parcel was not delivered to respondent No,1, as it was not traceable to have been received at Karachi by the appellant. On enquiry from London Overseas Mail Office, the appellant came to know that the parcel was lost, but it could not be determined as to when and where it was lost and therefore, under the collective advice system the sender of the parcel was compensated by the London Overseas Mail Office by payment of . 118.95.
4. Respondent No,3 also filed written statement and resisted the claim of respondent No,1, wherein they denied knowledge of the date on which the parcels were despatched. They alleged that the appellant and respondent No,2 were responsible for the loss and therefore, respondent No,3 was absolved from the liability and loss, if any. They denied that the present risk was covered in the policy. It was further stated that the exporter had been compensated by Post Office in England and therefore, suit for compensation could not be filed against it. The learned trial Court framed a number of issues which had arisen out of these pleadings. It came to the conclusion that the parcel was despatched by the shipper from London through Post Office and had been lost before it could reach respondent No,1. It also came to the conclusion that the appellant and respondent No,2 were liable for damages for the entire amount of loss sustained by the respondent No,1, while respondent No,3 was liable for a sum of Rs,35,000 for which the consignment was insured. It, therefore, decreed the suit accordingly. It also granted interest @ 18% per annum against the appellant, respondent No,2 and respondent No,3 on the amount so decreed.
5. I have heard Mr. Abdul Waheed Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr Aziz-ul- Hassan, learned counsel for respondent No,1. I have also heard Mr. Zahid Alvi, learned counsel for respondent No,3. There is no appearance for respondent No,2, who has chosen to remain absent.
6. The appeal has been filed by the Director-General, Pakistan Post Office, Ministry of Communications, through Assistant Post Master General (Inv.) Metropolitan Circle, Karachi. A suit can be filed by and against juristic persons. No suit can be filed by or against some one, who is not a person. For example, suit cannot be filed by or against a cow, a dog, a lamp-post, a bicycle or a postbox or even a post office. Similarly, an appeal can be filed by an aggrieved person, whether he is a party or not. But no appeal can be filed by someone, who is not a `person', according to law. By now it is settled law that none of these three designations is a legal person or body. Hence they do not come within the definition of words 'aggrieved person or party'. The appeal has, therefore, been filed by someone, who is not a legal person at all and is, therefore, incompetent. Reliance is placed in PLD 1971 Kar. 625 (Secy. B&R v. Fazal Ali Khan).
7. Government of Pakistan is a legal person, but it has chosen not to file appeal and has been arrayed as respondent No,2. M/s. Mercantile Fire & General Insurance Co. Of Pakistan Ltd. Is also a legal person , but it has also not chosen to file an appeal. It has also been arrayed as respondent No,3 in this appeal. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this short point. However, I would like to deal with the factual merits of this appeal as well.
8. Respondent No,1 had examined himself as Ex.5 and had produced a number of documents from which it was proved that he had entered into an agreement with a foreign shipper for the supply of 'imitation glass stones' and had opened L.C. With Habib Bank Ltd. The glass stones were accordingly dispatched' by the exporter through London Overseas Mail Office addressed to Habib Bank Ltd., Karachi, the receipts whereof are Ex.44 and the letter of the Post Office covering those receipts is Ex.43. These documents conclusively prove that the parcel was delivered to the London Overseas Mail Office for delivery to Habib Bank Ltd. Foreign Exchange Branch, Karachi.
9. Respondent No,1 has also produced Insurance Policy as Ex.19, which is not denied and it conclusively proves that the parcel was insured for Rs,35,000. Respondent No,1 has also proved that he had retired the documents and paid Rs,63,074 to Habib Bank Ltd., which was transferred to the exporter vide letter of exchange, which are Exs.36 and 37. It is, therefore, proved conclusively that Respondent No,1 has paid cost, insurance and freight for the said parcel. Respondent No,1 has stated on oath that he has not received the parcel. It is not the case of the appellant or respondent No,2, or even that of respondent No,3 that respondent No,1 had received this parcel. The entire dispute revolves around the fact as to whether after this parcel was received in London Overseas Mail Office, where it disappeared. There can be three possibilities. The first is that it was lost in London Overseas Mail Office. The second is that it was lost during transit from London to Karachi and the third is that it was lost after being received by the appellant and respondent No,2 at Karachi. In the first eventuality London Overseas Mail Office was responsible, while in the second eventuality London Overseas Mails the appellant and respondents Nos.3 were jointly responsible and liable to compensate the respondent No,1 for the said loss, while in the third eventuality respondent Not the appellant was responsible and liable. In any one of these situations respondent No,3 was liable to compensate respondent No,1, though to the extent of the insured amount. A number of letters written by respondent No,1 to the appellant and respondent No,2 as well as respondent No,3 and their officers have been brought on record. It is painful to note that no serious note was taken of these letters and no earnest efforts appears to have been made to redress the grievance of respondent No,1. Formal and evasive replies were given to him by the appellant and respondent No,1 in the beginning. One of the replies was that the London Overseas Mail Office having admitted the loss had compensated the exporter to the tune of 118.95. It is strange that the appellant and respondent No,2 remained satisfied with this reply of London Overseas Mail Office. It was, on the contrary their duty to have made it clear to them that the compensation should have been paid to respondent No,1, who had already retired the documents and not to the shipper, who had received costs, insurance and freight through Habib Bank Ltd. It is also painful to note that after the letter Ex.23 dated 22-61981, the appellant or respondent No,2 did not care to give any reply to respondent No,1 and turned a deaf ear to all his letters.
10. Mr. Abdul Waheed Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant, brought to my notice detailed Regulations of Convention of U.P.U. He submitted that Article 40.2 (i) (c) has absolved the appellant from liability of the loss of this parcel. His contention is not correct, because it is mentioned therein that the Postal administration shall not be liable only when the loss was by theft or damage of the parcel due to the fault or negligence of the sender or arise from the nature of the contents of the parcel. This is admittedly not so in the present case. The next Article which, accordingly to him, applied in this case was Article 42.4 in which the loss by theft or damage occurred in course of conveyance and it was not possible to establish in which country's territory it happened, then the administration concerned shall bear the loss equally. Sub-Article (6) of Article 42 also mentions that 'in case of bulk transmission, the administrations concerned may agree among themselves that liability be shared in the event of loss for theft C from or damage to certain categories of parcels, determined by mutual agreement. It is, therefore, clear that the liability is to be shared by the London administration as well as Pakistan administration. Hence it was the duty, of the Government of Pakistan to have compensated the respondent No,1. They could in turn compel the Government of U.K. To share the responsibility with them. This was all the more necessary when the London Overseas Mail Office had admitted the loss and accepted their liability, although they have claimed that they had made the payment to a wrong person.
11. The counsel for respondent No3 produced copy of their letter dated 7th August, 1980, whereby they had ejected the claim of respondent No,1. This document does not appear to have been produced during the course of trial. However, it will be useful to reproduce the contents of this document.
"We are in receipt of Miss Zaib's letter dated 4th August, 1980 on the subject.
' In this connection, we regret to inform you that the claim in question is not maintainable in terms of law and also under the conditions of the Insurance Company unless and until your client fulfils the obligations that fall upon him to establish the liability on the supplier to compensate the loss and accordingly he has been advised vide our letter of 31-7-1980 to do the needful. This is in continuation of our letter of 13-7-1980.
' We hope now the position is quite clear to you in this respect."
' The bare perusal of this document shows that the ground on which the claim of respondent No,1 was rejected, is far from satisfactory and merely evasive.
Under these circumstances I do not find any justification whatsoever to interfere with the judgment of the learne-d trial Court. Even so far as interest is concerned, looking to the undesirable conduct of the appellant and respondents D Nos.2 and 3, I find that the trial Court was justified in awarding interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Hence I upold the judgment and dismiss the appeal with costs.