JUDGMENT :- This is plaintiffs appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, dismissing his suit for recovery of value of mangoes sent by him for transport from Damalacheruvu on the M and S M Railway to Victoria Terminus, Bombay, on the G. I. P. Railway and for freight charges paid by him. The goods were consigned on 5-8-1945 and he paid a very large amount of Rs. 1024-6-0 for freight charges. The baskets of mangoes contained Neelam, Rumani and Thotapuri varieties. The plaintiff claims Rs. 6450. His case is that the mangoes reached Bombay in a damaged condition owing to considerable delay on the part of the railways which he attributes to their misconduct either on the part of their administration or their servants. The suit as framed is one for value of the mangoes sent plus the freight charges and he reserved his right for damages. In substance, however, I think the case may be treated as one for damages caused to him by the whole transaction. The Governor-General in Council is the first defendant and two railway systems, the M. and S. M. and the G. I. P. Railways, defendants 2 and 3. 2. Substantially the written statements admitted the delay in transit of the suit consignments over the G. I. P. Railway but denied the liability to make good any amount to the plaintiff. They took their stand on the terms of the risk note and in particular they stated that the claim was for an exaggerated amount and without prejudice to their offer of Rs. 2642 in full settlement, they contested the case. Later on the written statement was allowed to be amended and there was a specific plea that no valid and proper notice of the suit under S. 80, Civil P. C., was served upon the Governor-General in Council. This plea of want of notice under S. 30, Civil P. C., was allowed to be raised by the first defendant, who was originally ex parte. The written statement of the second defendant was also allowed to be amended and the amended statement appears to have been, adopted by the 1st defendant.

3. The lower Court has found that the notice under S. 80, Civil. P. C., is bad. As regards the damage caused actually by the misconduct of the railway servants it has fixed it at Rs. 4575 apart from the freight charges. The lower Court was also of the opinion that the company was liable and the risk note does not protect the defendants. The suit was, however dismissed, because of its findings with regard to S. 80, Civil P. C., notice. Plaintiff has come on appeal, and there is a memorandum of cross-objections by the respondents with respect to costs disallowed and also raising, the grounds objecting to the correctness of the finding as regards the value of the mangoes sent. The points for determination are: (1) Is the suit bad for want of proper notice under S. 80, Civil P. C.? (2) What is the correct amount of the value of the mangoes and what should be the amount to be given to the plaintiff in case the defendants are liable? (3) Are the defendants protected by the terms of the risk note? (4) Is the order as to costs correct?

4. Point No. 1. Notice under S. 80, Civil P. C., is, no doubt, mandatory and its terms must be fully and properly complied with and cannot be ignored as observed by me in SUBRAMANYAM v. THE UNION OF INDIA, 1950 2 Mad LJ 656. Though it has been held that S. 80 can be waived, in the present instance, the written statement was allowed to be amended before trial and I cannot disregard that plea. The objection under S. 80 is that it is not so stated in the notice and though it is addressed to the Secretary, Central Government, Railway Board, New Delhi, it does not state that the Governor-General-in-Council will be sued. I have had to deal with this matter in the case already referred to and also in a recent appeal, SANKUNNI MENON v. SOUTH INDIAN RLY., A.S. No. 543 of 1947, decided by me a fortnight ago. I was of opinion that the decision in GOVERNOR-GENERAL-IN-COUNCIL v. KRISHNASWAMI PILLAI, 1946 1-Mad LJ 267, was clea