SOUTHERN RAILWAY Vs. MITAYIGIRI PULLAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this revision is whether a suit filed by a consignor of goods beyond six months from the date of the delivery of goods for carriage by the Railway is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 77 of the Indian Railways Act (IX of 1890). The revision raises a point under section 77 of the Act and there is a conflict of decisions on the interpretation of the provisions of that section. In the interests of finality, it is necessary that this question should be disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court. I therefore direct this revision petition to be posted before a Bench.

(2.) In pursuance of the above order the petition came on for hearing'before the Bench.

(3.) This revision has come before a Bench on a reference made by one of us (the Chief Justice) in view of the conflict of decisions on the interpretation of the provisions of section 77 of the Indian Railways Act, IX of 1890. This revision arises out of a suit filed by the respondent against the Union of India owning the Southern Railway for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 52-1-0 on account of the price of 3 sarees which were missing at the time of the delivery of the goods consigned to the plaintiff at Nandyal by a cloth merchant at Trichinopoly. The plaintiff's allegation was that 46 sarees were consigned by the merchant at Trichinopoly and the consignment, when it was delivered contained only 43. sarees. The claim was for compensation for shortage of delivery. The defendant Railway inter alia contended that as the plaintiff failed to give the notice as required by section 77 of the Indian Railways Act, within six months of the delivery of the goods to the Railway he was not entitled to any compensation. Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act reads as follows :-