BHAYYALAL RAMRATAN JAISWAL, PROPRIETOR AND MANAGER OF FIRM RAMRATAN BHAIYALAL MERCHANT AND COMPANYMMISSIONER AGENT Vs. AGENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, B. N. RLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision, under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, by the plaintiff-applicant whose suit against the defendant-non-applicant, that is, Bengal Nagpur Railway Company, has been dismissed by the Court below. The suit against the defendant Railway Company was for compensation for damage caused to tins and their oil contents comprised in a consignment evidenced by the railway receipt (Ex. D.4). The Standard Vacuum Oil Company, which was the consignor as well as the consignee, had endorsed the railway receipt to the plaintiff entitling him to obtain delivery at Tumsar railway station which was the destination of the goods. The defendant Railway Company contested the suit but without any trial, the lower Court dismissed the suit holding on the preliminary issues that the suit could not be maintained. One of the contentions, which the defendant Railway Company raised and has prevailed with the lower Court, is that the claim (Ex. D-2) which the plaintiff preferred as prescribed by Section 77, Railways Act, was not addressed as required by Section 140 ibid and was therefore invalid. There is no substance in this contention. The notice (Ex. D-2), which contains the claim, has been addressed as follows: To: The Superintendent General and Agent B.N. Bailway House Kidderpore, Calcutta. So in this case the notice has been addressed to the Agent. The fact that it was jointly addressed to the Superintendent General and Agent cannot give rise to the construction that it was not addressed to the Agent. The lower Court has relied on Mannalal v. Secy. of State A.I.R. 1927 Nag. 267 which is however distinguishable as in that case the notice was not addressed to the Agent. I hold that the notice (Ex. D-2) is perfectly valid. The other contention on behalf of the defendant Railway Company was that the plaintiff was neither a consignor nor a consignee and was therefore not entitled to sue. The endorsement on the back of the railway receipt by the Standard Vacuum Oil Company which was both the consignor and the consignee, entitled the plaintiff to claim delivery of the goods and must entitle him to bring the present suit. This contention therefore also fails. I allow the application for revision with costs and reversing the judgment and decree of the Court below, I remand the case for trial on merits. Counsel's fee Rs. 15. It is necessary that before further proceedings are taken up the plaintiff should be required to correct the misdescription in the title of the defendant Railway Company, as was allowed to be done in Saraspur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. B.B.& C.I. Ry. Co. A.I.R. 1923 Bom. 452, by describing the defendant as Bengal Nagpur Railway Company, Ltd. Head Office, Calcutta. I direct accordingly.