AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devadoss, J.—This is an application to revise the decree of the District Munsif of Rajamundry in Small Cause Suit No. 679 of 1925. The
plaintiff''s suit is for damages for loss of goods in transit and defendants Nos. 2 and 4 are the G.I.P. Railway Company and the Secretary of State
for India in Council. The District Munsif decreed the suit. The Secretary of State has filed this petition.
The contention of Mr. Nambiar on behalf of the petitioner is that no notice was served on the Secretary of State as required u/s 80, Civil
Procedure Code. 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 u/s 77 of the Indian Railways Act within six months of the loss, that is, on 20th
February, 1925. The Railway Administration was taken over by the Secretary of State for India on 1st 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 u/s 80, Civil Procedure Code. It is urged by Mr. Nambiar
that the provisions of Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, 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, place 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 of the Indian 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."" 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 the point.
The question is whether in this case a second notice u/s 80, Civil Procedure Code, is necessary. It is urged for the respondent by Mr. Vallabha
Charyulu that notice u/s 77 of the Indian Railways Act has to be given to the Railway Administration and as u/s 3, Clause 6 ""Railway
Administration by the Government means the manager of the Railway and includes the Government"" and as u/s 140, a notice is required by this
Act to be served on the Railway Administration, it may be served in the case of a Railway Administration by the Government on the manager ""by
delivering a notice or other document to the manager or his agent, or by leaving it at his office, or by forwarding it by post in a prepaid letter
addressed to the manager or agent at his office and registered under Part III of Indian Post Office Act, 1866,"" and that a notice to the manager of
the Railway Administration is sufficient notice to the Government, that is, to the Secretary of State. I do not think that a mere notice to the
administration of the loss of goods is sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, for Section 80, CPC
requires certain particulars to be mentioned and in the absence of such particulars the notice cannot be held valid. It was held in Radha Sham
Basah v. Secretary of State for India 34 Ind. Cas. 130 : 44 C. 16 : 23 Cri.L.J. 547 : 20 C.W.N. 790 that a notice given u/s 80 CPC was sufficient
compliance with the requirements of Section 77 of the Railways Act. In order to make the Railway Administration liable for a loss, a notice within
six months is a condition precedent and without giving such notice a Railway Administration cannot be made liable and in order to make the
Secretary of State liable it is necessary that notice should be given u/s 80, Civil Procedure Code. But it is open to a party to give a combined
notice which would satisfy the requirements of Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act as well as the requirements of Section 80, Civil Procedure
Code. In this case when the notice of the loss of goods was given to the Railway Administration, the Railway Administration had not been taken
over by the Secretary of State; in other words, the Railway was not a State Railway. The question is, after a party has complied with the
requirements of law at the time when the Railway was not a State Railway, is he to lose the benefit of what he has done by reason of the Secretary
of State taking over the administration at a time when the right to sue, so far as the plaintiff is concerned had matured? The contention on behalf of
the petitioner is that even though the administration was taken over long after the notice was given, yet the Secretary of State is entitled to a fresh
notice u/s 80, Civil Procedure Code. I am unable to uphold this contention. When the Secretary of State takes over the administration of a Railway
Company or when he buys the Company, he takes or buys it subject to all the liabilities of the Railway Administration. It is not as if the plaintiff is
seeking a remedy against the Secretary of State for anything done by any of his officers at the time when the cause of action arose. If the cause of
action arose against the Railway Administration after the plaintiff had complied with the requirements of law in order to enable him to file a suit
against the Railway Administration, it is not open to the Secretary of State to take over the administration and then ask the person who has got a
valid claim against the Railway Administration to give further notice u/s 80, Civil Procedure Code. The case would have been different if the
Secretary of State was the owner of the Railway at the time of the loss in which case the acts of the Railway servants would have been acts of the
Secretary of State and as such he would be entitled to notice u/s 80, Civil Procedure Code. As I said, it is open to a party to give a combined
notice which would satisfy all the requirements of Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. But if a party does
not do that he must give a notice u/s 77 within six months in order to enable him to claim compensation for loss of goods and he must give a notice
u/s 80, Civil Procedure Code, in order to enable him to file a suit against, the Secretary of State. But inasmuch as the Secretary of State has
intervened at a later stage, that is, at a stage when the plaintiff had his claim ready against the Railway Company, it is not open to him to say that he
must have a fresh notice u/s 80, Civil Procedure Code. It is unnecessary in, this view to consider the Privy Council case reported as AIR 1927
176 (Privy Council) where their Lordhips held that the provisions of Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, were imperatives. Lord Sumner observed
To argue as the appellants did, that the plaintiffs had a right urgently calling for a remedy, while Section 80 is mere procedure, is fallacious for
Section 80 Imposes a statutory and unqualified obligation upon the Court."" This observation does not in any way affect the present question. As I
said if the Railway was a State Railway under Government at the time the loss occurred notice u/s 80, Civil Procedure Code, would be imperative.
In Radha Sham Basah v. Secretary of State for India 34 Ind. Cas. 130 : 44 C. 16 : 23 Cri.L.J. 547 : 20 C.W.N. 790 it was held that notice given
to the Collector u/s 80, Civil Procedure Code, was sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act. There, the
notice was given within six months and the suit was after two months after the date of notice, so that the notice to the Collector, u/s 80, Civil
Procedure Code, was held to be sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 77 of the Railways Act.
In this case Exs. B and B(1) show that the plaintiff not only complained of the loss of goods and claimed compensation but gave notice of suit
inasmuch"" as he distinctly stated that he should have early remittance of the amount claimed and in default he would be put to the necessity of
seeking relief in a Court of Law. I think this is sufficient notice of suit so far as the Railway Administration was concerned. The Secretary of State
having taken over the Administration of the Railway Company stands in the shoes of the Railway Administration which he took over and,
therefore, the suit which is good against the Railway Administration is also good against him. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs.