(FIRM) BALAKRAM-ATMA RAM Vs. SECYOF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for damages against the Secretary of State on account of the loss of 18 cases of vegetable oil which were consigned to Shahjahanpur from Bombay. The consignment was not delivered at Shahjahanpur and the plaintiff sent notice to the Collector of Shahjahanpur under Section 80, Civil P.C., claiming damages and after having waited for over two months brought the present suit. Admittedly no separate notice under Section 77, Railways Act, was served on any officer of the railway. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that it must fail for want of a notice under Section 77, Railways Act. The first Court held that the notice not having been given, the suit was not maintainable, and dismissed the claim. On appeal the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the notice given to the Collector was quite sufficient and the defect was cured. On appeal to this Court a Judge has come to a contrary conclusion and restored the decree of the first Court.

(2.) The only point for consideration in this Letters Patent appeal is whether the notice given to the Collector dispensed with the necessity of serving any other notice under Section 77, Railways Act. Obviously the object of the two provisions are quite distinct and separate. Section 80, applies to all suits brought against the Secretary of State and it requires that no suit shall be instituted until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been given to a Secretary to the Local Government or the Collector of the District. Section 80 therefore provides a period for the notice, and the person who has given such notice must wait for that full period before he brings any suit. That the Collector does not necessarily represent the Secretary of State for India in Council in all cases is apparent from the fact that the Legislature has thought fit to name him specifically in this section.

(3.) Section 77, Railways Act, is meant for an entirely different purpose. It is confined to suits brought against the Railway Administration for loss, destruction or deterioration of goods, and provides that no person shall be entitled to a refund or to compensation unless his claim has been preferred in writing by him or on his behalf to the Railway Administration within six months from the date of the delivery of the animals or goods for carriage by railway. The object obviously is that prompt notice should be given to the railway company to enable them to make enquiries and settle the matter out of Court by paying compensation to the plaintiff, if possible. The period of six months prescribed in this section is by way of a bar of limitation and is not like the period prescribed in Section 80, Civil P.C., which has to be excluded from computation under Section 15(2), Limitation Act. It follows that the two sections being clearly independent, two separate notices are necessary before the suit can be maintained. There must be a notice given to the Railway Administration under Section 77, Railways Act, within six months J of the date of the delivery of the [goods, and the plaintiff must also give notice to the Collector under Section 80, Civil P.C., and wait for a period of two months before he sues.