Service of notice upon the Chief Commercial Manager is not a valid service under Sections 77 and 140 of the Railways Act. The notice should be served upon the General Manager of the Railway, who is in overall charge of the railway administration concerned.

( 1 ) THIS is an appln. for revn. of an order, dated 29-4-1960, passed by an Addl. Dist. J. of 24-Pergannas.

( 2 ) THE facts are briefly as follows: On 30-1-1946, sixty-five bags of tobacco were booked by the pltf. opposite party from Nilphamari, a station on the B. A. Rly. Administration for carriage and delivery to him at Khulna which is also on the same Rly. Administration. Both the stations are now within the Dominion of Pakistan. On 8-2-1946, the pltf. was given delivery of only forty, five bags out of sixty-five bags, the balance having been lost in transit. On 22-1 1947, the pltf. instituted a suit against the then Governor-General of India in Council as representing the B. A. Rly. Administration. This suit was instituted in the Ct. of the Subordinate Judge at Khulna, and it was based on a claim for compensation for short delivery of consignment. On 15-7-1948, the Khulna Ct. ordered the return of the plaint to the pltf. holding that the liability was of the Indian Dominion. Thereupon on 80-7-1948, the plaint was refiled in the Ct. of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore against the Dominion of India as representing the E. I. Rly. Administration.

( 3 ) THE present petnr. viz. , the Union of India, as representing the E. I. Rly. Administration, filed a written statement submitting inter alia that the Alipore Ct. had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit inasmuch as no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that Ct. The trial Ct. found in favour of the pltf. on the merits, but gave effect to the plea of the present petnr. relating to want of jurisdiction, and ordered the return of the plaint. The pltf. opposite party filed an appeal, and an Addl. Dist. J. , Alipore, allowed the appeal, and directed the Trial Ct. to proceed with the suit in accordance with law and decree the same in favour of the pltf. The present Revn. appln. is directed against this order of the Addl. Dist. J.

( 4 ) IN deciding that the Alipore Ct. had jurisdiction to try the suit, the Lower Appellate Ct. was influenced by two considerations, viz. , (a) notice Under Section 77, Rlys. Act, claiming damages for compensation for the short delivery was served upon the Chief Commercial Manager, B. A. Rly. , whose office was at Sealdah, within the jurisdiction of the Alipore Ct. and (b ). The E. I. Rly. as represented by the Dominion of India has an office at Sealdah.

( 5 ) IN our opinion, neither ground, as set forth above, is sound.

( 6 ) AS regards the first ground, the main point for investigation is whether in view of the provisions of Sections 77 and 140, Rlys. Act, service of notice upon the Chief Commercial Manager is a valid service so as to satisfy the requirements of the above sections. In our opinion, the answer must be in the negative. In the case of a Rly. administered by the Govt. as in the present case, notice has to be given to the Manager of the Rly. , and that term, in our opinion, means not any sectional or departmental Manager like the Chief Commercial Manager, but the Principal or General Manager who is in over-all charge of the Rly. administration concerned. The General Manager can override the views of sectional officers and he can compromise or allow or resist any claim, as was pointed out in the decision of Sen J. in the unreported case of Surendra Nath Poddar v. Governor-General of India in Council, (civil Revn. No. 1353 of 1947, D/- 25-11-1948 ). In Assam Bengal Railway Co. Ltd. v. Radhika Mohan, 28 C. W. N. 438 : (A. I. R. (10) 1923 Cal. 397), it was held that a notice to the Traffic Manager would not amount to a notice to the Agent or General Manager. In the present case, therefore, no notice having been served upon the General Manager of the Rly. and his head quarters, it may be pointed out, is outside the jurisdiction of the Alipore Ct.--the Lower Appellate Ct. was in error in holding that there was accrual of cause of action by reason of the service of notice upon the Chief Commercial Manag