AMARENDRA NATH SEN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The plff. Surendra Nath Poddar is the applicant and the Governor General in Council and the Manager of the Bengal and Assam Railway are the deft. opp. parties.

( 2 ) THE plff. sued for the recovery of compensation for non-delivery of one out of a number of bales of cloth which was booked by the plff. at Sealdah Railway station on 31-8-1944 to be delivered to him at Kasiani. The Railway failed to deliver one bale and the plff claimed compensation for that bale. There was a series of letters between the plff. and the Chief Traffic Manager and on the failure of the Rly. to satisfy the plff. the plff. on 16-2-1945 sent a notice claiming compensation to the Chief Transportation Manager, Bengal and Assam Rly. , 3 Koilaghata Street. A notice was also sent in accordance with the provisions of Section 80, Civ. P. C.

( 3 ) THE defence taken by the Rly. Administration inter alia was that the goods had been stolen by some unknown persons and that the Railway was not responsible as none of the Railway servants had misappropriated the goods. There were two other defences taken namely that the notice of the claim to the Chief Transportation Manager was not sufficient to satisfy the provisions of Ss. 77 and 140, Railways Act and that the notice under Section 80, Civ. P. O. was not proper. The learned Judge held that there was nothing wrong as regards the notice under Section 80, Civ. P. C. but he held that the service of notice on the Chief Transportation Manager of the Bengal and Assam Railway was not sufficient' compliance with the provisions of the Railways Act and that consequently the suit was not maintainable. The correctness of this view is challenged by the plff. in this Rule and it is the only point for determination. The decision of this question will depend on interpretation of Ss. 77 and 140, Railways Act 1890. Section 77 is in the following terms:"a person shall not be entitled to a 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. "

( 4 ) IT is clear from the section that a person shall not be entitled to compensation for loss, destruction or deterioration of goods delivered to be carried by a railway company unless his claim for compensation has been preferred in writing to the railway administration within six months from the date of the delivery of the goods for carriage by the Railway. The notice was given within six months. The question arises whether the notice has been given to the railway administration. Now, the term 'railway administration' has been defined in Section 3 (6), Railways Act, 1890 and it says that "railway administration" or "administration" in the case of a Railway administered by the Govt. means the Manager of the Railway and in the case of a Railway administered by a company means the Railway Company. We are concerned here with a Railway administered by the Govt. and therefore it must be held that notice to the railway administration means notice to the Manager of the railway. I next turn to Section 140 of the aforesaid Act which is in the following terms:"any notice or other document required or authorised by this Act to be served on a railway administration may be served in the case of a railway administered by the Govt. or a Native State, on the Manager and, in the case of a railway administered by a railway company, on the Agent in India of the Railway company (a) by delivering the notice or other document to the Manager or Agent; or (b) by leaving it at his office; or (c) by forwarding it by post in a prepaid letter addressed to the Mana

Click Here to Read the rest of this document