KONDAPALLI VIRRAJU Vs. GENERAL MANAGER REPRESENTING THE UNION OF INDIA UOI OWNING SOUTHERN RLY MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision pension raises a question relating to the interpretation of Sections 77 and 80 of the Indian Railways Act. 1890. It arises out of a suit instituted (or recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,415.00by way of damages for the loss caused by the deals in transit of goods from Farukabad to Rajahmundry,

(2.) The facts of the case may be briefly stated. The petitioner is a merchant at Rajahmuiidry dealing in vegetables. He purchased some potatoes at Farukabad. They were consigned at Farukabad to Rajahmuiidry under railway receipt dated 25-1-1554. The wagon reached Rajahmundry after a considerable delay and the goods delivered to the petitioner on 19-2-1954. When the wagon was opened, it was found that the potatoes were considerably damaged. The railway officers estimated the damage caused to the petitioner at 37 per cent of the cost. A week later, the petitioner laid a claim for Rs. 1,415.00 as damages from the Southern Railway. As this demand was not complied with, he issued a notice both under S. SO C. P. C. and Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act to the three railway administrations, namely, the Southern Railway, the Central Railway and the Northern Railway, the last being the administration with which the consignor entered into a contract for the carriage of goods, the first being the railway that delivered the goods and the other being the railway system on whose lines also the goods were carried. All the railways repudiated their liability, with the result that the petitioner brought the suit which has given rise to this revision,

(3.) The Southern Railway defended the suit on the ground that as the delay did not occur while the goods were in their custody, they were not liable to pay any damages. The other two railways resisted it on the objection that the terms of Section 77. of the Indian Railways Act were not complied with.