LAWS(CAL)-1958-4-4

GAJANAN DHANUKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On April 01, 1958
GAJANAN DHANUKA Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs of the Trial Court are the appellants in this appeal. They instituted the suit in the Trial Court against the Union of India as owning and representing the then Bengal Nagpur Railway for recovery of compensation for non-delivery of nine hags of spices and condiments as described in the schedule of the plaint. The non-delivery was attributed to the gross negligence and misconduct on the part of the Railway servants. The total claim was laid at Rs. 2,298/- the price of the spices being assessed at Rs. 2,273. 8/- as. and proportionate railway freight for the non-delivered bags being assessed at Rs. 24. 8 as. It was also alleged in the plaint that notice under sec. 77 of the Indian Railways Act had been served on the Claims Officer, Bengal Nagpur Railway, and notice under sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served on the General Manager of the Bengal Nagpur Railway.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the Union of India which denied its liability by contending that there was no negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway servants the loss of the goods being due to a theft committed by some miscreants. It was also contended that the notices in question were not served according to law.

(3.) THE trial Court held upon the evidence adduced by the parties that the notice under sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was duly and legally served and that (the non-delivery of the goods was due to the misconduct end gross negligence of the railway servants and the story of theft set up in the defense was highly improbable. It was further found that the amount claimed by way of compensation was not excessive or unreasonable. In spite of these findings the suit was dismissed on the ground that the notice under sec. 77 of the Indian Railways Act having been served on the Claims Officer and not on the General" Manager, the service was not valid and not in accordance with law, and that the defective service of the notice disentitled the plaintiffs from recovering any compensation from the Railway Administration.