JUDGMENT Gyanendra Kumar, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 6316-4-6 from the respondents. The admitted facts are that on 8.11.1948 a consignment of 141 bags of potato seeds was booked from Mainpore Road Station of the then O.T. Railway for transit to Jaunpur O.T. Railway station. The consignors were M/s Kalicharan Ram Baldeo Ram and the consignees were M/s Narain Ram Ram Prasad. The plaintiff is the owner of the consignee firm at Jaunpur which is a joint family concern. The consignment reached Jaunpur on 2nd December, 1948, after about 23 days of its despatch. The plaintiff wanted to take open delivery inasmuch as the goods were alleged to be in a rotten condition but it was refused by the Railway. However, without giving any notice to the plaintiff, the Railway sold away the goods for an alleged sum of Rs. 400/-. Hence the suit. The claim of the plaintiff consists of the following items:- (a) Prince of 141 bags of potato seeds per Bijak including misc. expenses Rs. 5829-11-6 (b) Loss of profits @ 20% on price Rs. 1165-15-0 (c) Cost of notices Rs. 5-8-0 Amount deducted on account of railway charges Rs. 7001-2-6 Total amount claimed Rs. 684-14-0 Rs. 6316-4-6 The defendant-respondents denied most of the plaint allegations and inter alia stated that the goods has reached Jaunpur in sound condition before the usual period, that the servants of the Railway did not commit any negligence or misconduct, that the plaintiff refused to take delivery of the consignment without any sufficient cause, that the gods were sold by public auction for Rs. 400/- after due notice to the plaintiff, that on the other hand the plaintiffs notice to the O.T. Railway under Section 77 of the Railway Act was barred by limitation. The learned Civil Judge framed a number of issues. His finding on issue no. 1 was that the goods in question had been received at Jaunpur in decayed condition. On issue no. 2 the finding was that the goods did not suffer damage or become rotten due to the negligence of the servants of the Railway. On issues nos. The learned Civil Judge framed a number of issues. His finding on issue no. 1 was that the goods in question had been received at Jaunpur in decayed condition. On issue no. 2 the finding was that the goods did not suffer damage or become rotten due to the negligence of the servants of the Railway. On issues nos. 3 to 5 his finding was that the suit was not barred under Section 80 for want of notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act nor because of want of notice under Section 80 C.P.C., nor was the notice beyond limitation. On issue no. 7 the Civil Judge recorded the finding that the Railway had a right to sell away the consignment and that it did so in accordance with law, after giving due notice to the plaintiff. 2. I would first like to refer to the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the effect that under Section 77 of the Railway Act, the plaintiff was bound to prefer his claim for compensation in writing to the Railway Administration within 6 months from the date of the delivery of the goods for carriage by Railway. It is the admitted case of the parties that the goods were delivered for carriage by the O.T. Railway at Mainpore station on 8th November, 1948 and they had reached Jaunpur on 2nd December, 1948. The notice of demand of compensation under Section 77 of the Act (Ex. 9) is dated 4.5.1949. It was posted under `Registered Acknowledgement Due' cover on 5.5.1949. It had been addressed both to the General Manager as well as to the Traffic Manager O.T. Railway, Gorakhpur. The notice meant for the General Manager was received by him on 7.5.1949 (Ex. 2), while the notice addressed to the Traffic Manager was received by him on 9.5.1949 (Ex. 1). Thus it is abundantly clear that the notice addressed to the Head of the Railway Administration concerned, namely the General Manager, had been received by him on 7.5.1949, within the prescribed period of 6 months, envisaged by Section 77 of the Railways Act. 2), while the notice addressed to the Traffic Manager was received by him on 9.5.1949 (Ex. 1). Thus it is abundantly clear that the notice addressed to the Head of the Railway Administration concerned, namely the General Manager, had been received by him on 7.5.1949, within the prescribed period of 6 months, envisaged by Section 77 of the Railways Act. The mere fact that the notice addressed to the Traffic Manager was received by him a day beyond the prescribed period of 6 months is of no avail, when the duplicate of the notice had already been received by the General Manager on the 7th of May, 1949, within the prescribed limit. 3. It has been strenuously argued by Dr. K.N. Katju, learned counsel for the appellant, that in the first place there is no adequate evidence on the record to prove that the Railway authorities has actually auction-sold the goods in question and secondly even if they did so, it was in utter violation of the provisions of Sections 55 and 56 of the Railways Act, 1890- inasmuch as the Railway had failed to give the statutory notice to the plaintiff. 4. On behalf of the defendant-respondents only one witness Manjoo Ram was produced. In December, 1948 he was the Goods Clerk at Jaunpur O.T.R. station. According to his deposition, the goods were in good condition and had not become rotten on 2.12.1949, when the consignment was received at Jaunpur. He admitted that the plaintiff had met him at the station but he refused to take delivery of the consignment, due to the fall in the price of the goods and told him that he would claim damages from the Railway. According to this witness, potatoes were not considered to be perishable goods under the General Rules Classification and that perishable goods were always booked paid and never `To pay'. In the instant case the goods were booked `To pay' which also shows that potatoes were not considered perishable goods. This witness went to the length of saying that on 4th December, 1948, he had gone to Machhlishahr, where the plaintiff used to reside, under the verbal order of the Traffic Inspector (claims) to give a notice under Section 56 of the Railways Act to inform the plaintiff that if he did not take delivery of the goods, the same would be sold by auction. The witness further deposed that he had taken a chit from the plaintiff to prove his visit to Machhlishahr in this connection. He also stated that on his return from Machhlishahr he had informed the Traffic Inspector in writing about his visit to that place in compliance with his order. Curiously enough, neither the writing alleged to have been taken by him from the plaintiff nor the one sent by him to the Traffic Inspector has been produced in the case to show that he had really gone to Machhlishahr to give notice to the plaintiff as required by Sections 55 and 56 of the Railways Act. According to his own admission, the Goods Clerk had not charged his T.A. for going on this obviously official work but himself bore the travelling expenses of Rs. 18/- for going to and coming back from Machhlishahr in a bus. He also admitted that he had not made any note in the Attendance Register about his going to Machhlishahr. He further admitted that this was the only occasion when he had gone to an out station to give such a notice to the consignee. The testimony of D.W. 1 Manjoo Ram regarding the service of notice under Sections 55 and 56 on the plaintiff is wholly unsatisfactory and incredible. The learned Civil Judge was clearly in error when he accepted the ipso dixit of such an unsatisfactory witness. Moreover, the requisite notice under Sections 55 and 56 of the Railways Act has to conform to the requirements mentioned in those sections. The notice regarding the contemplated auction sale by the Railway must be at least of 15 days and must obviously be in writing. It must also be published in one or more local newspapers and where there are no such newspapers, then in such other manner as the Central Government may prescribe. Where the claimant is known, such a notice must be duly served, requiring him to remove the goods in question within a specified time. From the deposition of D.W. Manjoo Ram it is quite clear that he was fully aware of the requirements of Sections 55 and 56 of the Railways Act. Where the claimant is known, such a notice must be duly served, requiring him to remove the goods in question within a specified time. From the deposition of D.W. Manjoo Ram it is quite clear that he was fully aware of the requirements of Sections 55 and 56 of the Railways Act. It is impossible to believe that instead of complying with the clear provisions of Sections 55 and 56 of the Act by giving a notice in writing in the normal manner prescribed by law, the Goods Clerk would choose to go personally to the plaintiff's residence in another town, at his own cost and be content with verbally telling him to remove the goods, failing which the same would be auction-sold. As already noted earlier, the so-called `chit' alleged to have been taken by him from the plaintiff was also not produced in the case. If it had really existed, one would expect this valuable document to be brought on the record in order to substantiate the allegation of the Goods Clerk that he had really gone to Machhlishahr to serve the requisite notice on the plaintiff. It is also impossible to believe that this enthusiastic Goods Clerk would take the trouble of going all the way to Machhlishahr for this purpose and defray the expenses from his own pocket, although under Section 55 such expenses were recoverable from the defaulting consignee. I, therefore, hold that the requisite notice under Sections 55 and 56 of the Act was not served on the plaintiff. 5. It is thus clear that the respondents had, if at all, illegally auction-sold the goods in question, in utter violation of the mandatory provisions of Sections 55 and 56 of the Railways Act. The Railway had no right to sell away the potatoes, which, according to the own case of the defendants were not treated as perishable goods, in the summary manner adopted by the defendants, without giving the requisite notice to the plaintiff. It must be emphasised that even in those cases where the non-perishable goods have started perishing or decaying, it is necessary to serve a notice under Sections 55 and 56 of the Act, before selling off the goods by auction. Under the circumstances, the defendants were liable to pay damages suffered by the plaintiff. The deposition of the plaintiff and the Bijak (Ex. Under the circumstances, the defendants were liable to pay damages suffered by the plaintiff. The deposition of the plaintiff and the Bijak (Ex. 11) on the record fully establish that the price of the potatoes paid by him was Rs. 5286-11-6. The plaintiff was not cross-examined on the question of price of the goods and there is no reason to believe that they were really not worth Rs. 5829-11-6. The respondents were liable to make good that loss to him, after deducting the railway freight to the extent of Rs. 684-14-0. The balance due to the plaintiff thus works out at Rs. 5144-13-6. 6. In the result I allow the appeal; set aside the judgment and decree of the court below and decree the claim of the plaintiff for Rs. 5144-13-6 with costs throughout.