The judgment emphasizes the importance of interpreting notice requirements in a manner that does not deprive individuals of their just claims, and the retrospective operation of delegated authority.

Niyogi, J—This is an application to revise the judgment of the Third Subordinate Judge, if Class Nagpur, empowered under Section 18, C.P. Courts Act, in Civil Suit No. 89 of 1943 dismissing the plaintiff's suit on 24-4-1944.

2. On 7-7-1942 the management of the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited sent 4 bales of towels from Delhi to Itwari in the name of the self and endorsed the same in favour of the plaintiff Govindlal, a minor. The plaintiff received only 3 bales at the Itwari station. One bale that was missing contained 40 dozen towels and then market rate being Rs. 11 per dozen.

3. The plaintiff made a complaint to the Station Master as well as to the Superintendent General of the Bengal Nagpur Railway Company and on 19-10-1942 sent a notice to the Superintendent General B.N.R. by registered post through his pleader demanding settlement of his claim as early as possible. That was acknowledged by the Superintendent General on 29.10-1942. As the plaintiff received no further response, he on 9-5-1943 served notices purporting to be under Section 80, Civil P.C. as shall as under Section 77, Indian Railways Act, on the Secretary to the Central Government, New Delhi, and the Manager G.I.P. Railway Victoria Terminus Bombay and the Agent B.N.R., Calcutta. The Deputy Director, Railway Board, Simla, on 24-5-1943 intimated to the plaintiff that his notice had been forwarded for disposal to the Agent and General Manager, B.N.R., Calcutta, who was the competent authority to deal with the matter and to whom all further references on the subject should be made. Since the decision of the suit, the Bengal Nagpur Railway has come under the direct control of the Governor-General in Council as the G.I.P. Railway already was before the institution of the suit.

4. In the lower Court both the Governor. General in Council representing the G.I.P. Railway and the Agent R.N. Railway conceded that there was the loss of one bale in train it and they did not contest the amount of damages claimed.

5. They, however, contended that as no notice as contemplated in Section 77, Railways Act was properly served on the Manager of the G.I.P. Railway or the Agent of the B.N. Railway the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any damages. That contention prevailed in the lower Court with the result that the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

6. The main dispute turns on the question whether the notice that was given to the Superintendent General on 19-10-1942 (Ex. P-15) fulfilled the requirements of Section 77, Railways Act. In a number of cases is was held that the notice contemplated in Section 77, Railways Act must be ser, ed on the Agent or the Manager of the Company in one of the modes prescribed in Section 140, Railways Act. It was also held that notice served on an officer appointed to investigate the claim is not notice which could properly answer the requirements of Section 77, Indian Railways Act.

7. These cases are referred to in Deorao v. G.I.P. Ry Co.,1912 8 NIR 34 and Mannalal v. Secy of State, 1927 AIR(Nag) 276. But as there was divergence of the judicial opinion on the point the question came to be considered by a Pull Bench in Mahadeva Ayyar v. S.I. Ry. Co., 1922 AIR(Mad) 362 in which it was held that the notice of claim under Section 77, Indian Railways Act must be served upon the Agent or Manager of the Railway or upon any officer deputed by the Company or its Agent or Manager to receive such notice and that it would be sufficient if the Agent or Manager had somehow knowledge of the claim within the specified time. Kumaraswami Sastri, J. was of opinion that Section 140 was an enabling provision and that the word 'may' did not mean 'must' so as to maks other modes of service ineffectual even in cases in which the notice was actually given. The learned Judges however concurred in the conclusion that the suit had been rightly thrown out because the notice had not been sent to the Agent and there was no evidence that the Agent had notice wi