K CHANDRASEKHARAM SUBUDI AND SONS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs petition against the judgment of Small Cause Court Judge of Berhampur dismissing his suit (S. C, C. Suit No. 239 of 1956).

(2.) The plaintiff commenced the suit for recovery of Rs. 220/- from the defendant-railway (South Eastern Railway) as compensation for damages to a consignment of Atta booked under R/R 5987/32, invoice No. 1 dated 27-9-55 from Bhilsa Railway Station 011 Central Railway to Berhampur Railway Station on the South Eastern Railway. The plaintiff's whole case was that they being the consignees took delivery of the aforesaid consignment on 13-10-1955 and found that some of the contents were damaged. The Station Master, Berhampur granted a certificate (Ex. 1) on 19-10-1955 to the effect that the contents to the extent of 14 maunds and 10 seers were damaged. Thereafter the plaintiff put in claim under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act (Act IV of 1890) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and received a reply from the Railway administration under the date 13-2-1956 that the matter was receiving their attention. Since the claim was not settled, the plaintiff served a notice on the defendant-railway under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and filed the present suit on 6-11-1956.

(3.) The defence was that Bhilsa where the consignment was booked is not on the defendant's railway, and accordingly the plaintiff is put to the strict proof that the alleged damage was caused to the consignment while passing through the defendant's railway. They further averred that the claim was excessive and that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest as claimed in the suit. Their contention was that there was no negligence or carelessness on the part of the defendant-railway administration. Various other objections were also taken, such as, the suit was bad for non-joinder of parties; that the suit was not maintainable as no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served on the defendant; and that the suit was barred by limitation.