Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

C.R.P No. 999 of 1956 and 481 of 1957

Attorney(S)

For the Appellant: A.S. Prakasam, G. Chandrasekhara Sastry, K. Krishna Murthy, M. Suryanarayana Murthy, Advocates

Judges

Chandra Reddy, C.J
Srinivasachari, J.

Acts

SECTION 80 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
section 80, Civil Procedure Code and section 77 of the Indian Railways Act
section 77 read with section 80 of the Indian Railways Act
sections 77 and 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890.
Indian Post Office Act, 1866.11. These provisions
section 77 of the Indian Railways Act.6.
section 140 of the Indian Railways Act
section 77 of the Indian Railways Act.
section 80 of the Indian Railways Act
section 77.12. These provisions

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Chandra Reddy, C.J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petition arises from a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,415 as damages for loss caused by delay in transit of potatoes consigned from Farukabad to Rajahmundry. The goods were consigned under a railway receipt dated 25 January 1954; delivery occurred on 19 February 1954 after a considerable delay. On delivery the potatoes were found considerably damaged; a railway officer estimated 37% damage. The petitioner claimed Rs. 1,415 from Southern Railway; when the claim was not complied with he issued notices under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and section 77 of the Indian Railways Act to three railway administrations (Southern, Central and Northern). All three railways repudiated liability and the petitioner sued. The Southern Railway defended on the ground that the delay did not occur while the goods were in their custody; the Central and Northern Railways objected that the requirements of section 77 of the Indian Railways Act had not been complied with. The lower Court found that Southern Railway was not responsible for the delay, that the damage was due to delay while goods were in the possession of the Central and Northern Railways, but dismissed the suit against those two railways because the notice required by section 77 was not served on them. This Civil Revision Petition challenges that decree.

Legal Issues Presented

How are sections 77 and 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 to be construed in relation to notice of claim — in particular, whether notice to one railway administration suffices where the plaintiff seeks to hold multiple railway administrations liable.
Whether service of the notice contemplated by section 77 on one railway administration (here, Southern Railway) satisfies the statutory requirement when other railway administrations (Central and Northern) are also sought to be made liable, given that all railways vest in the Union of India.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The notice issued to the Southern Railway constituted sufficient compliance with section 77 of the Indian Railways Act.
Because all railway systems now vest in the Union of India, it is not necessary to serve separate notices on each and every railway administration that the plaintiff seeks to make liable.

Respondents' (Railways') Arguments

Any railway administration sought to be made liable must be served with a notice of demand as required by section 77 of the Indian Railways Act; notice to one administration is not sufficient.
Southern Railway specifically defended the suit on the factual ground that the delay did not occur while the goods were in their custody and thus they were not liable for damages.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
D.H Railway Co. v. Jetmull Bhojraj, A.I.R. 1956 Cal. 390	The railway administration which is sued should be intimated of the claim for compensation.	Cited as authority supporting the proposition that the administration sought to be made liable must receive notice of the claim.
Union of India v. Durgadutt, A.I.R. 1957 Cal. 202	The different railways of India must be treated as separate legal entities; one notice to the Union of India does not satisfy section 77.	Used to support the conclusion that separate railway administrations retain distinct legal personality for purposes of section 77 notice requirements.
Dominion of India v. Firm Museram Kishnaprasad, A.I.R. 1950 Nag. 85	Section 80 treats each railway system as a separate administration; suing the Governor-General as representing entire State-owned railways was improper.	Relied upon to demonstrate that section 80 contemplates separate administrations and that notice/service must be directed to the specific administration.
Kishanlal Roopchand & Co. v. Indian Dominion (reported decision)	Effect of section 77 read with section 80 is that no railway administration can be made liable unless the claim is preferred to it within six months.	Referred to for the principle that a claim must be preferred to the railway administration sought to be made liable within six months, reinforcing the statutory notice requirement.
Governor-General in Council v. Ajithbhai Jayanthilal and Co. (reported decision)	Where both railway administrations are part of the same system, notice to the administration the plaintiff thought responsible should be sufficient if that notice is brought to the attention of the other administration.	The Court considered this view but disagreed, finding the interpretation inconsistent with the language of section 77 and not persuasive in light of section 80 and related provisions.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by extracting and analysing the text of sections 77 and 80 of the Indian Railways Act. It identified section 77 as a condition precedent requiring that a claim for refund or compensation be preferred in writing to the railway administration within six months from delivery of the goods; failure to do so precludes institution of a suit for the reliefs mentioned. Section 80 was interpreted as conferring an option on the aggrieved party to sue either the railway administration with which the consignor entered into the contract of carriage or the railway administration on whose lines the loss occurred — thereby treating each railway administration as a separate entity with individual existence and personality.

The court rejected the petitioner's contention that because all railway systems vest in the Union of India, notice to any one railway administration suffices for all. The court reasoned that if liability were to be treated as that of the Union alone, the alternative liability created by section 80 would be meaningless. The presence of alternative liability in section 80 indicates that Parliament intended to preserve the individuality of different railway administrations.

Next, the court considered the object of section 77: prompt notification to the appropriate authorities so they can investigate the loss or damage. Serving notice on a single railway administration would frustrate that object if the administration sought to be made liable did not receive effective notice and thus could not inquire promptly. Therefore, the court found no scope for a legal fiction treating service on one administration as service on all.

The court reinforced this interpretation by reference to procedural and service provisions: section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (as amended) requires notice to be served on the General Manager of the railway where the suit is against the Central Government and relates to a railway, and section 140 of the Indian Railways Act prescribes modes of service on the Manager or Agent of the particular railway administration. These provisions, the court held, indicate that notice should be served on the manager of the particular railway sought to be made liable.

The court reviewed judicial decisions from various High Courts which predominantly supported the view that notice must be served on the specific railway administration against which relief is sought. Although it acknowledged a contrary statement in Governor-General in Council v. Ajithbhai Jayanthilal and Co., the court found that statement inconsistent with the language of section 77 and declined to follow it. On balance, the preponderance of authority and the plain language of the statutes favoured the requirement of service of notice on each administration sought to be made liable.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court upheld the decision of the lower Court and dismissed the Civil Revision Petition with costs. The court further dismissed Civil Revision Petition No. 481 of 1957 on the same ground (failure to satisfy section 77), also with costs.

Implications:

The direct effect is that the lower Court's dismissal of the suit against the Central and Northern Railways (for want of service of notice under section 77) is affirmed, and the revisions are dismissed with costs.
The opinion applies and adopts the existing line of authority and statutory interpretation that a claimant must prefer a written claim to the particular railway administration sought to be made liable within the six-month period prescribed by section 77; failure to do so disentitles the claimant to maintain a suit for the reliefs mentioned in that section.
The decision enforces the practical consequence that notice must be served on the Manager/Agent of the specific railway administration (as reflected in section 140 of the Indian Railways Act and section 80, Civil Procedure Code) rather than relying on service to a different administration or a single notice to the Union to cover multiple administrations.

Final Disposition: Petitions dismissed.

Show full summary ...

Kondapalli Virraju v. The General Manager, Representing The Union Of India Owning Southern Railway, Madras And Others

Chandra Reddy, C.J:— This Civil Revision Petition raises a question relating to the interpretation of sections 77 and 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. It arises out of a suit, instituted for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,415 by way of damages for the loss caused by the delay in transit of goods from Farukabad to Rajahmundry.

2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. The petitioner is a merchant at Rajahmundry dealing in vegetables. He purchased some potatoes at Farukabad. They were consigned at Farukabad to Rajahmundry under railway receipt, dated 25th January, 1954. The wagon reached Rajahmundry after a considerable delay and the goods were delivered to the petitioner on 19th February, 1954. When the wagon was opened, it was found that the potatoes were considerably damaged. The railway officer estimated the damage causes to the petitioner at 37 per cent of the cost. A week later, the petitioner laid a claim for Rs. 1,415 as damages from the Southern Railway. As this demand was not complied with, he issued a notice both under section 80, Civil Procedure Code and section 77 of the Indian Railways Act to the three railway administrations, namely, the Southern Railway, the Central Railway and the Northern Railway, the last being the administration with which, the consignor entered into a contract for the carnage of goods the first being the railway that delivered the goods and the other being the railway system on whose lines also the goods were carried. All the railways repudiated their liability, with the result that the petitioner brought the suit which has given rise to this revision.

3. The Southern Railway defended the suit on the ground that as the delay did not occur while the goods were in their custody, they were not liable to pay any damages. The other two railways resisted it on the objection that the terms of section 77 of the Indian Railways Act were not complied with.

4. The lower Court on a consideration of all the material that was placed before it came to the conclusion that the Southern Railway was not in any way responsible for the delay in the delivery of the goods, that the damage was due to the delay in the transit of goods while they were in the possession of the Central and the Northern Railways and that, therefore, the two latter railways alone would be liable to pay damages. However, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit in the view that the suit as against those two railways was not sustainable, since the notice contemplated by section 77 of the Indian Railways Act was not served on them.

5. In this revision against that decree, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice issued to the Southern Railway was a sufficient compliance of the provisions of section 77 and that each and every railway, administration that is sought to be made liable need not be served with notice, having regard to the fact that at present all the railway systems in the country vest in the Union of India. This proposition is contested by the learned counsel for the respondents who urges that any railway administration, which is sought to be made liable should be served with notice of demand, as required by section 77 of the Indian Railways Act.

6. Since the question that has to be answered turns on the construction of sections 77 and 80 of that Act, it is useful to extract them here.

“Section 77: 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.

Section 80: Notwithstanding anything in any agreement purporting to limit the liability of a railway administration with respect to traffic while on the railway of another administration, a suit for compensation for loss of the life of or personal injury to, a passenger, or for loss, destruction or deterioration of animals or goods where the passenger was or the animals or goods were booked through over the railways of two or more railway administrations, may be brought either against the railway administration from which the passenger obtained his pass or purchased his ticket, or to which the animals or goods were delivered by the consignor thereof as the case may be, or against the railway administration on whose railway the loss, injury, destruction or deterioration occurred.”

7. Thus section 77 lays down the condition that the claim for refund or compensation should be preferred in writing to the railway administration within six months from the date of delivery. This is made a condition, precedent to the Institution of any suit for any of the reliefs mentioned in the section. It is also clear from section 80 that only two of the railway administrations are liable for damages or compensation, i.e, the railway administration with which the consignor entered into a contract for carriage of goods or the railway over whose lines the loss occurred. It is, therefore, clear that the section treats, each of the railway administrations as a separate entity with separate existence and personality.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for purposes of section 77 of the Indian Railways Act, all the railway systems should be regarded as a single unit since they all belong to the Union of India, and that if notice was served on any one of them, service of notice on the other administrations could be dispensed with. We find it difficult to accede to this contention having regard to the provisions of section 80. That section creates a liability on the part of railways in regard to the loss caused to a party. It contains the law relating to the liability of different railways mentioned therein. The section gives an option to the aggrieved party to sue either the railway system with which he has entered into a contract of carriage or the railway administration over whose lines damages were caused to the goods. If the theory of the petitioner is to be accepted, it is ununderstandable as to why alternative liability is provided for. If as is argued, the liability is that of the Union Government in whom all the railways vest, there could be no question of fixing the liability either on one or the other of the railways. It is true that section 80 was enacted at a time when the different railway systems belonged to different owners and therefore, such a provision was necessary. But, then if any alteration was contemplated, Parliament would have amended that, section suitably. The section, as it stands, points to the conclusion that the individuality of each of the railway administrations continued. Thus section 80 furnishes a clue to the interpretation of section 77.

9. Further, in construing section 77, we have to bear in mind the object with which that provision was made. The purpose underlying that section is that the authorities concerned should be appraised of the loss or damage promptly in order to enable them to investigate into the matter quickly and get some information as regards the loss or damage. If the submission of the petitioner is to prevail, the very object of this section would be defeated. Unless the railway system, which is sought to be mulcted with damages has notice of if, it would not be in a position to enquire into the matter and the notice issued to another railway administration would be of no help whatsoever in regard to the matter indicated in that section. There is therefore, no scope for creating a fiction that service of notice on one of the railway administrations is service on all the railway administrations.

10. This conclusion of ours is also reinforced by the terms of section 80, Civil Procedure Code as also section 140 of the Indian Railways Act. Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, as it stands to day requires notice to be served on the General Manger of the Railway in the case of a suit against the Central Government, where it relates to a railway. This makes it plain that the notice should be served on the Manager of the particular railway which is sought to be made liable. The same result is sought to be achieved by section 140 of the Indian Railways Act which recites:—

“Any notice or other document required or authorised by this Act to be served on a Railway Administration many be served, in the case of a railway administered by the Government or a State, on the Manager, and in the case of a railway administered by a railway company, on the Agent in India of the railway company—

(a) by delivering the notice or other document to the Manager or Agent; or

(b) by leaving it at his office, or

(c) by forwarding it by post in a prepaid letter addressed to the Manager or Agent at his office and registered under Part III of the Indian Post Office Act, 1866.”

11. These provisions of law are in consonance with the view that each railway administration is treated as having a separate existence and therefore, it should be informed of any claim which an aggrieved person proposes to make within the time mentioned in section 77.

12. These provisions of law were subject to judicial scrutiny and we may now turn to the decided cases on the subject.

13. This matter was considered by a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in D.H Railway Co. v. Jetmull Bhojraj . A.I.R 1956 Cal. 390.. In that case, the learned Judges thought that the railway administration, which is sued should be intimated of the claim for compensation. In Union of India v. Durgadutt . A.I.R 1957 Cal. 202. Lahiri, J., ruled that for the purpose of filing a suit, the different railways of India must be treated as separate legal entities and there was no warrant for the contention that one notice issued to the Union of India as representing all the railways satisfies the terms of section 77 of the Indian Railways Act. The view taken by a Bench of the Nagpur High Court in Dominion of India v. Firm Museram Kishnaprasad . A.I.R 1950 Nag. 85., seems to accord with the above doctrine. It was, inter alia, laid down in that case that section 80 of the Indian Railways Act treats each railway system as a separate administration and that therefore, merely suing the Governor-General as representing the entire State-owned railways was not a proper form of suit, since that, would render section 80 nugatory.

14. This question was also dealt with by Mack, J., in Kishanlal Roopchand & Co. v. Indian Dominion. The learned Judge laid down the principle that the effect of section 77 read with section 80 of the Indian Railways Act was that no railway administration could be made liable for compensation, unless such a claim was preferred to it within six months from the date of delivery of the goods for carriage by the railway.

15. Although several cases were cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner as establishing his contention noticed above, the only one that has a real bearing is the decision in Governor-General in Council v. Ajithbhai Jayanthilal and Co., wherein Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., observed thus:—

“But, in this case, both the railway administrations are part and parcel of the same system of railways and notice to the administration who the plaintiff thought, was directly responsible to deliver the goods, should be considered sufficient when that notice had been somehow brought to the notice of the other administration from whom the plaintiff seeks to claim relief.”

16. We are unable to agree with the rule stated by the learned Judge. The interpretation placed by the learnd Judge on section 77 is not borne out by the language of that section. The other rulings cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not throw any light on this aspect of the matter, as they deal with different aspects such as the option to file the suit either against the one or the other of the railways envisaged in section 80 and therefore, it is not necessary for us to consider those rulings in any detail.

17. The above discussion shows that the preponderance of authority is in favour of the view that any railway administration against whom relief is sought must be served with notice under section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and failure to do so will disentitle the aggrieved party to maintain a suit for any of the reliefs mentioned in that section. We are in entire agreement with the principles laid down in those cases since they are in accordance with the plain meaning of the language employed in sections 77 and 80 of the Railway Act.

18. In the result, we uphold the decision of the lower Court and dismiss this Civil Revision Petition with costs.

19. Civil Revision Petition Mo. 481 of 1957.—The same principle applies to this case also as the suit out of which this revision has arisen also was dismissed on the ground that the terms of section 77 of the Indian Railways Act were not satisfied. This revision petition also is dismissed with costs.

M.S.K

20. Petitions dismissed.

Kondapalli Virraju v. The General Manager,...