SOUTH INDIAN CO-OPERATIVE STORES LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sued the Union of India for compensation for short delivery out of two consignments of oil. The defendant contended that the railway was not liable for the loss; that in any case, the plaintiffs had not the right to sue for compensation for the loss and lastly that Section 77, Indian Railways Act barred relief.

(2.) THE trial Court held that the railway was liable and the plaintiffs had the right to sue and calculated the compensation to which the plaintiffs would be entitled but for the provisions of Section 77, Indian Railways Act - -as the price of 2 maunds 27 seers of oil at the rate of Rs. 39/8/ - per tin of 171/2 seers and the price of 1 maund 27 seers at the rate of Rs. 35/ - per tin of 171/2 seers and a further sum of Rs. 17/15/9 pies on account of freight over -charged. It held, however, that as Section 77. Indian Railways Act had not been complied with, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief and accordingly dismissed the suit.

(3.) IT appears that the notice of claim was sent to the Chief Commercial Manager but the service of this notice, it is said, is not sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 77, Indian Railways Act. It may be mentioned here that Section 77, Indian Railways Act does not speak of service of any notice or of any document; and if the question was res integra, I would have been prepared to investigate whether, in spite of this, the provisions of Section 140, Indian Railways Act have to be complied with in 'preferring a claim'. In numerous cases, where the question whether a claim had to be preferred in the manner laid down in Section 140, Indian Railways Act arose, it has been assumed that Section 77 requires the service of a notice and it has been held that such notice had to be served in the manner laid down in Section 140. I do not think it necessary, therefore, to pursue this matter further as we are bound by the authorities to hold that a notice on the Chief Commercial Manager did not amount to the preferment of a claim to the railway administration.