SHIV CHAND AGGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIV Chand, proprietor of Shiv Chand Aggarwal Steel Re-rolling Mills, Tanda road, Jullundur City, carried on the business of re-rolling steel and iron scraps in his Mill. He was allotted 195 tons 8 cwt. 2 qrs. 24 Ibs. steel scrap rail pieces for re-rolling by the Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta. On 20-12-1952 the Divisional operating Superintendent, Kalyan (Bombay) consigned to the plaintiff 124 tons 3 owts and 19 Ibs. of steel scrap rail pieces from Kalyan (Centra! Railway) to jullundur City (Northern Railway ). When the goods reached their destination, namely, Julundur City, the Northern Railway charged freight at III Class rates, being Rs. 3/3/8 per maund for the said goods on the ground that it was not scrap iron but they were steel rails. Shiv Chand consequently, brought a suit against the Onion at India through (1) the General Manager, Central Railway, Bombay, and (2) the General Manager, Northern Railway, Delhi, for the recovery of Rs. 6,362/1/-, which, according to him, had been illegally charged by Ihe Railway authorities. His allegations were that the Railway could charge freight for the said goods at W. L. C. rates, applicable to Iron and steel scrap, being Rs. 1/5/3 per maund. According to this rate, the defendant had overcharged the amount sued for. It was slated in the plaint that although, under the law, no notice was necessary, still the plaintiff had served the defendant with notices under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure before filing this suit.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the defendant on a number of pleas but in the present appeal we are concerned only with one of them, namely, that no notices under section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil procedure were ever served on the General Manager, Central Railway administration and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable against the Central railway Administration. It was also pleaded that the Northern Railway administration could not be held liable under any circumstances, because the contract for the carriage of the goods was with the Central Railway Administration and the plaintiff had a cause of action, if any, against the contracting Raliway and not against the Northern Railway, which acted as the agent of the other Railway administration.

(3.) THE Trial Judge came to the conclusion that valid notices, both under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, were served on the Northern Railway Administration, but no such notices were served on the Central Railway Administration. He also found that the Northern Railway administration was not liable in the present case. On these findings, he dismissed the suit. Against this decision, the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.