A letter sent by a plaintiff to a carrier containing all the information required by Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865, is a valid notice of loss or injury.

1. Briefly the facts of this case are that Messrs Fatehabad Cotton, Ginning and Pressing Factory, plaintiff No. 2, a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act, booked two consignments of cotton, comprising 100 bales and 75 bales, from Mandi Dabwali, situated in the erstwhile State of Punjab (now in Haryana), to Rampur (Uttar Pradesh) with the Jullundur Ex-Servicemen Motor Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. (defendant) vide two receipts dated May 26, 1967. It got the consignments insured with the General Assurance Society Ltd, (plaintiff No, 1). These were burnt at Delhi-U. P. border. The burnt goods were sorted out, surveyed and disposed of under the supervision of all the parties concerned. It is alleged that plaintiff No. 2 suffered a loss of Rs. 48,689/-. Plaintiff No. 1, it is further alleged, settled and paid the claim of plaintiff No. 2 who executed deed of subrogation in favour of plaintiff No. 1. Both the plaintiffs after having given up a claim of Rs. 689/-instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 48,000/-.

2. The defendant filed an application u/s. 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of proceedings in the suit on the ground that according to the terms of agreement between plaintiff No. 2 and the defendant, the disputes between them were to be referred to the arbitration. The trial Court, vide order dated April 30, 1971, dismissed the application. The iefendant came to this Court in appeal F. A. O. No. 149 of 1971) against the order of the trial Court. The parties entered into a compromise in the appeal and referred the matter to the arbitration of Mr. Amrit Sagar Mahajan, Advocate, Chandigarh, While he was dealing with the matter, he met with an accident and died. Consequently it was referred to Mr. Ram Lal Aggarwal, Advocate, as Arbitrator.

3. The defendant raised an argument before Mr. Ram Lal Aggarwal that no notice u/s. 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865 , had been served by any of the plaintiffs on the defendant within six months and, therefore, the plaintiff s claim was liable to be rejected. On behalf of the plaintiffs it was argued that the letter dated June 13, 1967, Exhibit P. W. 9/1/A satisfied the requirements of the said section. The Arbitrator having felt difficulty in deciding the matter and finding it to be of considerable importance, referred it for the opinion and advice of this Court u/s. 13 (b) of the Arbitration Act, vide order dated Jan. 9,1976. The matter was decided by Harbans Lal, J. who vide order dated Aug. 9, 1976,* held that notice dated June 13, 1967, Exhibit P. W. 9/1/A satisfied the requirements of S. 10 of the Carriers Act. Reported in 1976 78 PunLR 885.

4. The matter again came up before the Arbitrator. The plaintiffs further gave up their claim before him to the tune of Rs. 2,629/-. The Arbitrator on Feb. 18, 1977, passed an award for the recovery of Rs. 46,060/- in favour of the plaintiffs and filed it in this Court on Feb. 19, 1977. The defendant filed objections against the award u/s. 30 read with S. 33 of the Arbitration Act. pleading inter alia that the Arbitrator did not take into consideration the pleadings of the parties, that the letter Exhibit P. W. 9/1/A, dated June 13, 1967, of plaintiff No. 2, can, by no stretch of imagination, be treated as a statutory notice u/s. 10 of the Carriers Act, that the Arbitrator had not applied his independent judicial mind with regard to the said notice and accepted the opinion of the Court given u/s. 13 (b) of the Arbitration Act, that the opinion of the Court dated Aug. 9, 1976, was wrong and unwarranted and that the Arbitrator acted beyond his jurisdiction. The plaintiffs contested the objections. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the objections have been filed against the award within time ?

2. Whether the objections fall within the purview of S. 30 of the Arbitration Act. If not, with what effect ?

3. In case issue No. 2 is proved in favour of the objector whether there are suffic