Each railway administration is treated as having a separate existence and, therefore, it should be informed of any claim which an aggrieved person proposes to make within the time mentioned in Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision pension raises a question relating to the interpretation of Sections 77 and 80 of the Indian Railways Act. 1890. It arises out of a suit instituted (or recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,415. 00by way of damages for the loss caused by the deals in transit of goods from Farukabad to Rajahmundry,

( 2 ) THE facts of the case may be briefly stated. The petitioner is a merchant at Rajahmuiidry dealing in vegetables. He purchased some potatoes at Farukabad. They were consigned at Farukabad to Rajahmuiidry under railway receipt dated 25-1-1554. The wagon reached Rajahmundry after a considerable delay and the goods delivered to the petitioner on 19-2-1954. When the wagon was opened, it was found that the potatoes were considerably damaged. The railway officers estimated the damage caused to the petitioner at 37 per cent of the cost. A week later, the petitioner laid a claim for Rs. 1,415. 00 as damages from the Southern Railway. As this demand was not complied with, he issued a notice both under S. SO C. P. C. and Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act to the three railway administrations, namely, the Southern Railway, the Central Railway and the Northern Railway, the last being the administration with which the consignor entered into a contract for the carriage of goods, the first being the railway that delivered the goods and the other being the railway system on whose lines also the goods were carried. All the railways repudiated their liability, with the result that the petitioner brought the suit which has given rise to this revision,

( 3 ) THE Southern Railway defended the suit on the ground that as the delay did not occur while the goods were in their custody, they were not liable to pay any damages. The other two railways resisted it on the objection that the terms of Section 77. of the Indian Railways Act were not complied with.

( 4 ) THE lower Court, on a consideration of all the material that was placed before it, came to the conclusion that the Southern Railway was not in anyway responsible for the delay in the delivery of the goods, that the damage was due to the delay in the transit of goods while they were in the possession of the Central and the Northern Railways and that therefore, the two latter railways alone would be liable to pay damages. However, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit in the view that the suit as against those two railways was not sus-tamable, since the notice contemplated by Section 77. of the Indian Railways Act was not served on them.

( 5 ) IN this revision against that decree, it is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the notice issued to the Southern Railway was a sufficient compliance of the provisions of S. 77 and that each and every railway administration that is sought to he made liable need not be served, with notice, having regard to the fact that at present all the railway systems in the country vest in the Union of India. This proposition is contested by the learned counsel for the respondents who urges that any railway administration, which is sought to be made liable should be served with notice of demand as required by Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act.

( 6 ) SINCE the question that has to be answered turns on the construction of Sections 77 and 80 of that Act, it is useful to extract them here. Section 77: "a person shall not be entitled to refund of an overcharge in respect of animals or goods carried by railway or to compensation for the loss, destruction or deterioration of animals or goods delivered to be so carried, unless his claim to the refund or compensation has been preferred in writing by him or on his behalf to the railway administration within six months from the date of the delivery of the animals or goods for carriage by railway. " Section 80: "notwithstanding anything in any agreement purporting to limit the liability of a railway administration with respect to traffic while on the railway of another