FIRM THAKUR DASS MANRAKKHAN LAL Vs. EIRAILWAY CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff consigned. 126 bags of sugar from a station on the East Indian Railway line to Banda, a station on the G.I.P. Railway. Delivery was made to the plaintiff at Banda of only 120 bags. Out of those 120 bags three bags were empty, six had been cut and their contents partly missing, and the remaining six bags were not delivered at all. The plaintiff, therefore, sued the East Indian Railway and the G.I.P. Railway for compensation on account of the six bags, which had not been delivered and on account of the shortage of sugar in nine of the bags delivered.

(2.) One of the pleas taken for the defence, was that the suit was bad for want of notice tinder Section 77 of the Railways Act. Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff failed to prove service of notice upon the Railways, and dismissed his claim with costs.

(3.) The only argument which needs special consideration in second appeal is that so far as the six bags are concerned, which were not delivered, service of notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act was not: essential. The argument is that Section 77 only requires notice in a case of "loss" of packages, and not when the packages have merely not been delivered, and loss to the Railway Company has not been proved.