Strict compliance with the provisions of S.80 C.P.C. is mandatory, and a notice sent to the wrong authority cannot be treated as the notice required by the section. Additionally, the court clarified that the rejection of the plaint was not applicable in cases of defective notice under S.80 C.P.C.

1. This appeal is by the plaintiff in O. S.46 of 1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat.

2. The plaintiff was the consignee of 173 bags of beedy tobacco sent from Cochin Harbour Terminus by wagon No. E. B. 15358 under invoice dated 7-7-53. When the wagon was opened at its destination on 9-7-1953 it was found that a portion -of the goods was damaged by rain water. The damage was estimated at Rs. 7,201-9-0 and this suit was filed against the Union of India as represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras for recovery of damages. The suit notice Ext. B1 was dated 7-7-54 and it was served on the General Manager on the same day. The suit was filed on 7-9-1954. Thus it is seen that excluding the day on which the notice was actually served, the period of the notice was one day less than the statutory period of two months. The defendant contended inter alia that the suit was premature for want of compliance with S.80 C. P. C. That contention was upheld by the learned Sub Judge and the suit was dismissed.

3. The position that in computing the period of 2 months mentioned in S.80 C. P. C., the day on which the notice was actually served must be excluded, is not disputed. The only points urged in appeal are (1) that Exts. B13 and 12 notices dated 29-5-1954 and 4-6-1954 respectively sent by the plaintiff to the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Southern Railway, Trichinopoly, are to be treated as the statutory notices under S.80 C.P.C. and (2) that even if these two notices which were addressed to the Chief Commercial Superintendent instead of the General Manager are defective, for that reason, the management must be deemed to have waived their right to object by not taking such an objection in the reply notice Ext. A9, wherein the plaintiffs' claims were repudiated.

4. It may be mentioned even at the outset that the plaintiff has not put forward in his pleadings the case that the earlier notices are to be treated as the statutory notice under S.80 C. P. C. Even granting that it is open to the plaintiff to put forward such a plea at a later stage, a reading of the records would show that his original intention was not in conformity with his present plea. It is seen from para 8 of the plaint that after referring to the correspondence which passed between the plaintiff and the Commercial Superintendent, the plaintiff goes on to say that realising that he was unable to get justice except through court he had no option but to cause the formal and statutory notice of the suit under S.80 C. P. C. to be served on the General Manager of Southern Railway Madras, and that such notice has been served on such officer on 7-7-54. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the last sentence in the suit notice, viz., "I am to add that the entire correspondence on this subject which my client has had with the railway may be referred to in this connection and treated as part of the notice," would indicate that the plaintiff was for treating the earlier notices Exts. B12 and 13 as the statutory notices under S.80 C. P. C. This contention cannot be accepted.

S. 37 of the Indian Railways Act prescribes:

"that a person shall not be entitled to a refund of an over-charge in respect of animals or goods carried by railway or any compensation or loss or destruction 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."

It is clear that all the previous correspondence between the plaintiff and the railway administration including Exts. B12 and 13 related to the claim the plaintiff was obliged to make under S.77 of the Indian Railways Act.

5. Even accepting the plea that the plaintiff intended Exts. B12 and B13 to be substituted for the statutory notice we do not think that S.80 of the C. P. C. perm