A notice of claim under Section 77 of the Railways Act may be served on the Chief Commercial Superintendent of a railway administration, as he is a person standing very high in the hierarchy of officials and is the proper authority to deal with the claim.

( 1 ) THIS is au appeal by the Union of India representing the Eastern Railway Administration from a decree for Rs. 11, 928. 37 in favour of the respondent Alliance Assurance Company Limited in sespect of a claim for loss and/or non-delivery of certain goods, to wit certain tyres and tubes specified in the plaint and consigned from Bansabali on the Eastern Railway to Nagpur.

( 2 ) THE consignment was effected by the Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company of India Limited on April 7, 1953. It consisted of 467 packages of tyres and other rubber accessories. The goods were covered by an insurance policy of the Alliance Assurance Company Limited. sonic of these packages were never delivered at the destination station. The Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company Limited claimed from the plaintiff as an insurer and the latter paid to the Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company Limited a sum of Rs. 11,928-10-0 being the value ot the non-delivered goods. There is no dispute as to the loss or the shortage. The Union of India which was the first defendant in the suit raised various defences and a number of issues were struck but the only one to which the appeal is confined is issue No. 4, namely, whether there was any valid or sufficient notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act served on the proper authority. The adjudication of this issue depends on the proper construction to be put on certain correspondence coupled with the evidence adduced, The Insurance Company addressed a letter to the General Manager, Eastern Railway which was posted at Calcutta on June 2, 1953 and delivered to the addressee on the next day. The letter itself was dated May 29. 1953 and was headed. "claim for Rs. 11,928-10-0 for shortage of rubber goods booked from Bansabati to Nagpur under Railway Receipt No. C 543404 (Invoice No. 2) dated 7-4-53 shortage certified under Nagpur, Station Master's Certificate. "the text of the letter was as follows :--"we would advise you ot having settled a claim for Rs. 11,928-10-0 with our Insured, Messrs Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Ltd. Calcutta in respect of the above shortage. As the loss occurred whilst the goods were in your custody, we hold you responsible for the loss sustained and accordingly give you notice of claim under Sections 77 and 140 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, for the sum of Rs. 11. 928-10-0 as assignees of the consignees. A letter of Subrogation transferring the rights and interest in the undelivered goods to us has been executed by the consignees and we shall be glad if you will please settle our claim expeditionsly. "the plaintiff disclosed at the hearing of the suit, the counterfoil of a cheque for Rs. 11,928-10-0 bearing dated May 30, 1953. The evidence of the plaintiff's witness Khitish Chandra Chakravarty was to the effect that the cheque was actually handed over to a representative of the Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company of India Limited on May 30, 1953. Receipt for the payment was given on June 2 following and a document of assignment oi the claim of the Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company Limited was executed on June 11, 1953. The plaintiff addressed a letter to the Chief Commercial Superintendent of the Eastern Railway on June 6, 1953. This letter too bore the same heading as the letter to the General Manager. The letter was to the effect that the writers had settled the claim for Rs. 11,928-10-0 with Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company Limited in respect of the loss mentioned and that as the same had occurred while the goods were in the custody of the Railway Administration the plaintiff would hold the Administration resposible for the loss. By the letter the plaintiff gave notice of claim under Sections 77 and 140 of the Indian Railways Act. The enclosure to the letter mentioned a copy of a letter of subrogation as also a copy of a letter addressed to the General Manager. The letter of subrogation the original of which was produced before us showed that it first bore the date June 2, 195