The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proper notice of claim for compensation under Section 106(1) of the Railways Act 1989, emphasizing the need for actual service of notice and the specific addressees authorized to receive the notice.

R. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.

The Railway administration is before this Court in this appeal challenging the award of compensation quantified at Rs. 1,01,510/- in favour of the respondent on an application taken out by him bearing O.A.I/276/1994. Having regard to the point of law involved, we are of the opinion that it is unnecessary to state the entire facts. Suffice it to state that 238 bags of wheat valued at Rs. 1,01,510/- covered under two invoice Nos: 90 and 91, each for 119 bags were entrusted to the railway administration at Kota in Rajasthan for onward journey to Madurai. There is no dispute that the entrustment at Kota was on 17.11.1992. Stating that the entire 238 bags of wheat were not delivered at the place of destination, the consignee went before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Madras Bench, claiming the said sum of Rs. 1,01,510/- being the value of 238 bags of wheat not delivered.

2. The railway, among other things, contested the claim on the ground that no notice of claim for compensation, as contemplated under Section 106(1) of the Railways Act, 1989, hereinafter referred to as 1989 Act, was issued and, therefore, the claim is not maintainable. This legal objection was not accepted by the Tribunal and finding that there is non delivery and the value having been established, the Tribunal granted the compensation as prayed for. As stated earlier, it is this judgment that is in challenge in this appeal.

3. Heard Mr. V.G. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Subbiah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Mr. V.G. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the notice of claim for compensation stated to have been issued as per Ex.A.7 was not served on the railway administration within the period of six months as contemplated under Sub-Section (1) of Section 106 of the Railways Act 1989 and, therefore, on that short ground the claim must be rejected. Mr. S. Subbiah learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the contra, would submit that having regard to the date of entrustment namely 17.11.1992, and Ex.A.7, which is shown to have been issued on 15.05.1993, the said date falling within the period of six months from the date of entrustment, it must be held that a notice as contemplated under Section 106 of the Railways Act 1989 had been issued. Learned counsel would then submit that any information demanded or enquiry made in writing from or any complaint made in writing to, any of the Railway Administration mentioned in sub-section (1) regarding non-delivery etc., shall for the purpose of section 106(1) of the Act be deemed to be a notice of claim for compensation. Relying on the above referred to provision under sub-section (1) of section 106 of the 1989 Act, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that as the claimant by his letter dated 13.04.1993 addressed to the Chief Goods Supervisor, Southern Railway, Goodalur Nagar Goods Shed, Madurai and by letter dated 02.05.1993 addressed to the Divisional Manager, Southern Railway, Madurai, had complained about non-delivery, it may be held that those notices shall be deemed to be notices of claim for compensation as contemplated under section 106(1) of the 1989 Act. Learned counsel also submitted that the provisions of the Railways Act regarding the notice of claim for compensation and the persons on whom notice had to be served must be read liberally in favour of the citizen and for this purpose he relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 23 ( Niranjanlall v. Union of India ) and A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1144 ( Madras Post Trust v. Hymanshu Internation ). Then relying upon a judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported in A.I.R. 1981 Allahabad 18 ( Union Northern Railway and another v. Firm Anis Khan and others ), the learned counsel would submit that the enquiry contemplated under Section 106 (2) of the Railways Act is, in the nature of things, not expected to be made to