BADRI PRASAD Vs. GIPRAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff Lala Badri Prasad delivered according to his statement five packages to the Railway Company at Dholpur for being booked to Agra to be carried in the brakevan. This was done on 19 April, 1920. On 22nd October, 1920, he drew the attention of the Railway authorities that these five packages had not been delivered to him. This notice was given to the Railway Company three days more than six months from the data of delivery of the luggage. On 19 November, 1920, only four packages were made over by the Company to the plaintiff and out of one of these it is alleged that certain articles of 6ho plaintiff were stolen during transit. On 28 February, 1921, he gave a notice to the Company of his claim for the value of the one package not delivered to him and of the articles missing from a package which was delivered to him in a damaged condition.

(2.) He instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 516 with the following details: Rs. 431 price of goods contained in the missing: package and Rs. 85, price of articles found short in one out of the four packages-returned to him by the Company. As regards the missing package the plea in para. 2 of the plaint was that it was withheld by the Railway Company. The reply of the Company was that only four packages were delivered by the plaintiff to the Company and no fifth package was received by the Company.

(3.) In the first Court one of the pleas was that notice within time had not been given by the plaintiff to the Company as required by Section 77 of the Railways Act No. 9 of 1890 and that, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation for his loss. The first Court of the Munsiff of Agra held that the period of six months for a notice begins to run from the date on which delivery of packages is made by the Company to the consignor. The learned Munsiff therefore decreed the suit holding. that the missing package was worth Rs. 431 and the value of the pilfered goods Rs. 85. On appeal by the Railway Company the learned Subordinate Judge as an appellate. Court held that notice was not given within time and further that notice was necessary under the circumstances of the present ease.