Union Of India v. Indumati Saha

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Guha, J.:— This is an application for revision of an order, dated the 29th April, 1950, passed by an Additional District judge of 24-Parganas.

2. The facts are briefly as follows: On the 30th January, 1946, sixty-five bags of tobacco were booked by the plaintiff opposite party from Nilphamari, a station on the B.A Railway Administration, for carriage and delivery to him at Khulna which is also on the same Railway Administration. Both the stations are now within the Dominion of Pakistan. On the 8th February, 1946, the plaintiff was given delivery of only forty-five bags out of sixty-five bags, the balance having been lost in transit. On the 22nd January, 1947, the plaintiff instituted a suit against the then Governor-General of India in Council as representing the B.A Railway Administration. This suit was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Khulna, and it was based on a claim for compensation for short delivery of consignment on the l5th July, 1948, the Khulna Court Ordered the return of the plaint to the plaintiff, holding that the liability was of the-Indian Dominion. Thereupon on the 30th July, 1948, the plaint was refiled in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore against the Dominion of India as representing the E.I Railway Administration.

3. The present petitioner, viz., the Union of India, as representing the E.I Railway Administration, filed a written statement submitting inter alia that the Alipore Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit inasmuch as no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that court. The Trial Court found in favour of the plaintiff on the merits, but gave effect to the plea of the present petitioner relating to want of jurisdiction, and ordered the return of the plaint. The plaintiff opposite party filed an appeal, and an Additional District Judge of Alipore allowed the appeal, and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law and decreed the same in favour of the plaintiff. The present Revision application is directed against this order of the Additional District Judge.

4. In deciding that the Alipore Court had Jurisdiction to try the suit, the Lower Appellate Court was influenced by two considerations, viz., (a) notice under section 77 of the Indian Railways Act claiming damages for compensation for the short delivery was served upon the Chief Commercial Manager, B.A Railway, whose office was at Sealdah, within the jurisdiction of the Alipore Court; and (b) the E.I Railway as represented by the Dominion of India has an office at Sealdah.

5. In our opinion, neither ground, as set forth above, is sound.

6. As regards the first ground, the main point for investigation is whether in view of the provisions of sections 77 and 140 of the Indian Railways Act, service of notice upon the Chief Commercial Manager is a valid service so as to satisfy the requirements of the above sections. In our opinion, the answer must be in the negative.

7. In the case of a Railway administered by the Government, as in the present case, notice has to be given to the Manager of the Railway, and that term, in our opinion, means not any sectional or departmental Manager like the Chief Commercial Manager, but the Principal or General Manager who is in over-all charge of the Railway administration concerned The General Manager can override the views of sectional officers and he can compromise or allow or resist any claim, as was pointed out in the decision of Sen, J., in the unreported case of Surendra Nath Poddar v. Governor-General of India in Council (1) (Civil Revision Case No. 1353 of 1947, decided on the 25th November, 1948). In A.B Railway Co. Limited v. Radhika Mohan Nath (2) [(1924) 28 C.W.N 438], it was held that a notice to the Traffic Manager would not amount to a notice to the Agent or General Manager. In the present case, therefore, no notice having been served upon the General Manager of the Railway,—and his headquarters, it may be pointed out, is outside the jurisdiction of the Alipore Court,—the lower Appellate Court was in error in holding that there Was accrual of cause of action by reason of the service of notice upon the Chief Commercial Manager's officer at Alipore.

8. Nor are we prepared to accept the view of the Lower Appellate Court to the effect that the Alipore Court could have jurisdiction simply because the E.I Railway happens to have a subordinate office at Sealdah. Exhibit 8, a notification issued by the Railway Administration, is also of no assistance to the plaintiff: it did not invite claims which were subject matters of litigation, nor was payment promised at Sealdah when the suit was filed at Khulna. Reference may in this connection be made to the case or Dominion of India v. R.C Nath & Co. (3) (A.I.R 1950 Cal. 207) where it was pointed out that in somewhat similar circumstances as the present one, no cause of action accrued at Sealdah, so as to confer jurisdiction upon the Alipore Court.

9. We hold, therefore, that the Lower Appellate Court was not right in holding that the Alipore Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. In the result, the Rule is made absolute, the decision of the Lower Appellate Court is set aside and that of the Trial Court directing return of the plaint is restored and affirmed. In the circumstances, no order is made as to costs.

10. It is not necessary for us to express any opinion regarding the other aspects of the case so far as the present Rule is concerned.

Mookerjee, J.:— I agree.