G I P RY CO Vs. MAJETI SREERAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise the decree of the District Munsif of Rajahmundry in Small Cause Suit No. 679 of 1925. The plaintiff's suit is for damages for loss of goods in transit and defendants 2 and 4 are the G. I, P. By. Co. and the Secretary of State for India in Council. The District Munsif decreed the suit. The Secretary of State has filed this petition.

(2.) The contention of Mr. Nambiar on behalf of the petitioner is that no notice was served on the Secretary of State as required under Section 80, Civil P.C. The plaintiff who consigned at Bombay some goods has brought this suit against the Railway Company and the Secretary of State for loss of goods in transit. He gave a notice as required under Section 77, Railways Act, within six months of the loss, that is, on 20 February 1925. The Railway Administration was taken over by the Secretary of State for India on 1 July 1925, and the suit was filed on 18th August 1925. The question is whether the suit is bad by reason of the want of notice under Section 80, Civil P.C. It is urged by Mr. Nambiar that the provisions of Section 80, Civil P.C., are imperative and before a suit could be filed against the Secretary of State the provisions of Section 80 should be strictly complied with as regards the names of parties, places of residence and other particulars and a suit could not be filed before the expiry of two months from the date of service of notice. Section 77, Railways Act runs as follows: A person shall not be entitled to a refund of an overcharge in respect of animals or goods carried by railway, or to compensation for the loss, destruction or deterioration of animals or goods delivered to be so carried, unless his claim to the refund or compensation 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.

(3.) Before a suit could be filed against the Railway Administration a claim as regards loss should be made within six months and in the absence of such notice a suit is not maintainable, and as this has been decided over and over again it is unnecessary to refer to the authorities on that point.