UNION OF INDIA Vs. LAKSHMI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short point of law arises on this application in Revision, On 2-1-1951, the plaintiff, who is opposite party before us, booked 10 bags of betel-nut from a station called Nimtala in the suburbs of Calcutta to the Darbhanga railway station. On 27-3-1951, an open delivery of the consignment was taken which was found to have been tampered with. It was then discovered that there was a shortage of goods worth Rs. 192-8-0, On 10-4-1952, the opposite party served a notice which specifically stated that it was a combined notice under Section 77, Railways Act, and S, 80, Civil P. C., on the General Manager of the East Indian Railway administration and the General Manager of the O. T. Railway administration. No reply to the notice having been received, the opposite party instituted a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Darbhanga. He claimed a sum of Rs. 224-4-0 being the cost of the betel-nut and freight etc. Several pleas in defence were taken by the present petitioner, namely, the Union of India. We are concerned now with only one plea, namely, the plea that there was no valid notice under Section 80, Civil P. C., nor a valid notice under Section 77, Railways Act.

(2.) The learned Small Cause Court Judge held that there was a valid notice both under Section 77, Railways Act, and under Section 80, Civil P. C. He also found in favour of the opposite party with regard to the amount claimed. He decreed the suit accordingly.

(3.) The only point which is urged before us on behalf of the petitioner is that a combined notice under Section 77, Railways Act, and Section 80, Civil P. C. is unknown to law and cannot be valid either under Section 77, Railways Act, or under Section 80, Civil P. C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited before us several decisions in which the difference of the object of the two notices, one under Section 77. Railways Act and the other under Section 80, Civil P. C., was adverted to and it was observed that a notice under Section 77, Railways Act, could not take the place of a notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. It is worthy of note that those decisions were given before the amendment of Section 80, Civil P. C., in 1948. Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it now stands, states, inter alia, that no suit Khali be instituted against the Government until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of, in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to a railway, the General Manager of that railway. Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act, read with Section 140, of the same Act, requires a notice to be given to the Manager in the case of a railway administered by the Government. Therefore, the position is that both the notices have now to go to the same person or authority. It is true that the purpose of a notice under Section 77, Railways Act, is not the same as the purpose of a notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. The notice under Section 77, Railways Act, refers to a claim of compensation for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods delivered to be carried, whereas the notice under Section 80 refers to the institution of a suit against the Government. None of the two provisions state, however, that the two notices must necessarily be on two sheets of paper or must necessarily be given one after the other. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that the notice under Section 80, Civil P. C., must stale the cause of action; and as the cause or action includes a notice under S, 77, Railways Act, it necessarily follows that the notice under Section 77, Railways Act, must precede the notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. There is, however, no warrant for this contention in the provisions of either Section 77, Railways Act, or Section 80, Civil P. C. It is difficult to see why the two notices to the same person cannot be given at one and the same time and in one sheet of paper, provided at course that, the notice complies with all the requirements of Section 77, Railways Act and Section 80, Civil P. C. The decisions on which learned counsel for the petitioner relies, namely,--'Ali Asmat Shakur v. G.I.P. Rly.', AIR 1930 All 476 (A); -- 'Firm Baiakram-Atma Ram v. Secy, of State', AIR 1835 All 900 (B); and -- 'P'irm Hazi Jamal Noor Mohammed, Calcutta v. Governor General in Council', AIR 1947 Cal 28 (C), all related to cases where one of the tv;o notices had not been given.