UNION OF INDIA Vs. MEGHRAJ AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, Meghraj Agarwalla, brought the present suit for recovery of damages for non-delivery in respect of portions of two separate consignments of bidi tobacco. The first consignment was booked on 28-6-1928, and it is said that while on 20-9-1948, a portion of this consignment was duly delivered, four bags out of the thirteen bags were not delivered. The plaintiff assessed the damages in respect of this non-delivery at Rs. 1202/2/-. The second consignment was booked on 8-11-1948. The plaintiff's case is that only a portion of this was delivered to him, the remainder 4 maunds, 30 seers of bidi tobacco was not delivered. The plaintiff assessed the damages in respect of this consignment at the sum of Rs. 1138/-. The suit was brought on the total claim of Rs. 2340/2/-.

(2.) In the body of the plaint, the plaintiff averred that notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act had been duly served. The defendant, the present appellant before us denied the validity of the notice under Section 77 and also pleaded that both the consignments were duly and correctly made over to the Eastern Bengal Railway Administration under clear receipt. Another plea was that the suit was barred by limitation.

(3.) At the trial, the bar of limitation appears to have been pleaded only as regards the first consignment, it being urged that Article 31 of the Indian Limitation Act applied and the suit had been brought more than one year from the time when delivery ought to have been made. It was urged that the notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act having been served more than six months after the date of booking, the notice that wag served purporting to be under Section 77 was invalid in Jaw and so the provisions of Section 77 stood in the way of the plaintiff getting any relief as regards the first consignment.