ABDUL BASHEER SAHEB Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit in respect of which this appeal arises was filed for recovery of Rs. 1241-10-6 as the value of 107 bags of salt not delivered, along with other claims such as freight paid, notice charges and interest. It is not disputed that 180 bags of salt were consigned at Bombay Harbour for delivery to plaintiff, on 25-4-44. Of these, 73 bags were delivered to plaintiff on 21-5-44. The remaining 107 bags of salt were not delivered. But on 30-8-1944, as per Ex. D, the Station Master, Shimoga, wrote to the plaintiff that 104 bags of salt would be delivered to him in case he was prepared to receive reasonable compensation for the loss of salt. Plaintiff agreed to receive them and claimed a-compensation of Rs. 712/- (vide Ex. E). Evidently no further offer was made to the plaintiff by the Railway authorities as they thought that the compensation claimed was excessive. On 23-4-1945 a. no-ice was issued to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mysore and the suit was filed on. 18-7-1945, i.e., after two months from the date of issue of the notice. The Courts below have dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that no notice was issued to the Railway authorities under Section 61, Mysore Railways Act corresponding to Section 77, Indian Railways Act. They also relied on the fact that it was not shown that the loss occurred on the Mysore Railways.

(2.) It will be noticed that the fact that the Mysore Railways offered 104 bags of salt in a damaged condition to the plaintiff agreeing to pay reasonable compensation, is more than sufficient evidence to prove that out of 107 bags of salt that had yet to be delivered to the plaintiff, lot were received in a damaged condition by the Mysore Railways. It is in evidence that these 104 bags of salt were sold by the Mysore Railways and that a sum of Rs. 715/- was realised by their sale. To this extent, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs suit is a suit that required notice under Section 61. Section 61, Mysore Railways Act (equivalent to Section 77) is as follows:

(3.) As observed in -- 'Ramlal v. B. N. Rly. Co., Ltd., Calcutta', AIR 1933 Nag 21 (A):