P R NARAYANASWAMI IYER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two second appeals were referred to the Bench by Ramaswami J. and the civil revision petition was referred by Ramachandra Iyer J. in view of the conflict between the decisions in Kishanlal Roopchand and Co. v. Indian Dominion, and the Governor General in Council v. Ajit Bhai Jayantilal, In the former case, Mack J. took the view that, in a case where a particular consignment of goods was carried over more than one railway, each railway administration should be treated as a separate entity and a separate juristic personality, and, though all the railways concerned were owned by the Government, a separate action notice under Sec. 77 of the Indian Railways Act should be given to each railway administration on the pain of the plaintiff failing to recover any compensation for loss of goods. In the other case Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J. took the view that, in the case of loss of a consignment carried over two Government railways, notice under Sec. 77 given to one such railway which entered into correspondence with the other railway on the subject of the loss before the expiry of the period of six months mentioned in Sec. 77 of the Indian Railways Act was sufficient notice. Which of these two views is the correct one is one of the points for our determination in these three cases.

(2.) The facts of these three cases are the following. In two of these three cases, suits were laid against the Union of India by the consignee of goods for recovery of compensation for the loss of goods. In the two second appeals, the lower appellate courts have dismissed the suits, and in the civil revision petition, the Chief Judge of the court of Small Causes, Madras, dismissed the suit against the Southern railways, the first defendant but granted a decree against the second defendant, the Western railway, and an application for new trial was successful and the suit was dismissed against both defendants.

(3.) In S.A. No. 1008 of 1955, the appellant-plaintiff, a merchant in Tiruchirapalli, had five bales of woollen lohies and 7 bales of cotton piece-goods consigned to him from Baroda and Ahmedabad respectively on 21-10-1948 and 25-6-1950 for delivery to him at Tiruchirapalli station. Out of the first consignment of five bales of woollen lohies, only four bales were delivered on 17-11-1948. Since the fifth bale was not delivered, the plaintiff put in a claim for its value. In respect of the second consignment five bales alone were delivered to the plaintiff and the remaining two bales were not delivered. The plaintiff filed a suit against the Union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway claiming the price of non-delivered goods comprised in both consignments.