Hira Lal v. Northern Railway — 1966 DIGILAW 185 (ALL)

JUDGMENT R. Chandra, J. - This is an appeal by Hira Lal plaintiff against the judgment of the Civil Judge, Rae Bareli, who set aside the decree for money passed by the Munsif, in his favour. 2. Hira Lal plaintiff was a contractor. In April 1956 he took a contract from the P. W. D., Rae Bareli, for the supply of stone grit. He arranged for the grit at Jhansi, and got it loaded in four wagons at Jhanal Railway Station. On 21st October, 56 he booked the consignments under four railway receipts, for Dariyapur Railway Station in Rae Bareli district. The goods could not be delivered to the consignee within a reasonable time. The plaintiff entered into correspondence with the railway authorities, but to no avail. He was required to supply the goods to the P. W. D., Rae Bareli, by 31st December, 1956. The wagons, however, could not reach the destination by that date. They actually arrived between 6th June and 17th June, 1957. The plaintiff gave notices under Sec. 77 of the Railways Act and Sec. 80 of the C. P. C. The suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,527/-on account of damages and price of goods (not delivered by the Railway) was filed on 11th December, 1957. 3. The Suit was contested on a variety of grounds. One of the pleas raised was, that notice under Sec. 80, C. P. C., was defective. 4. The various pleas raised by the defendants did not find favour with the Munsif. He decreed the plaintiffs suit in toto. In appeal, the learned Civil Judge found that the notice under Sec. 80, C. P. C., was defective. On other findings, however, he entirely agreed with the Munsif. In this view, the plaintiffsuit was dismissed. Against that order, the present appeal is directed. 5. The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the notice under Sec. 80, C. P. C., was really defective, and that disentitled the plaintiff from getting any relief from the Court. 6. As already pointed out earlier, on 21st October, 1956 the plaintiff booked the consignments in suit from Jhansi Railway Station for Dariyapur in Rae Bareli district. Under the contract with the P. W. D., he was required to supply the goods by 31st December, 1956. 6. As already pointed out earlier, on 21st October, 1956 the plaintiff booked the consignments in suit from Jhansi Railway Station for Dariyapur in Rae Bareli district. Under the contract with the P. W. D., he was required to supply the goods by 31st December, 1956. It is clear that on account of the non-delivery of the goods in time, the goods could not be supplied to the department by the stipulated date. On that ground, the plaintiff also took a short extension, but by that period too the wagons booked for Dariyapur, could not be traced out. In connection with the non-delivery of the goods, Hira Lal sent three letters dated 6th December, 56, 15th Jan., 1957 and 12th February, 1957 to the Commercial Superintendent, Claims and Refund, Northern Railway, Varanasi. In all those letters, full details of the goods booked on 21st October, 1956 from Jhansi to Dariyapur were furnished (vide Exts. 38. 39 and 40). Even the invoice and R. R. Nos, were mentioned. The goods, however, could not be delivered to the......" plaintiff. So, on 28th March, 1957, he sent a notice under Sec. 77/140 of the Railways Act (vide Ext. 41). It contained all the necessary details of die various consignments booked on 21st October, 1956. The validity of this notice has not been challenged. On 29th March, 1957, the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Northern Railway, Varanasi, sent a letter to Hira Lal intimating that the four missing wagons had been traced out. This letter also mentioned the numbers of the railway receipts under which those wagons had been booked (vide Ext. 13). Thereafter, on 18th May, 1957, a notice under Sec. 80 of the C. P. C., was given on behalf of the plaintiff. The validity of that notice has been questioned by the defendants. The only objection appears to be that it did not contain the numbers of the four railway receipts under which the goods were booked. It was, however, clearly mentioned that on 21st October, 1956 the grit was loaded in four wagons and they were booked at Jhansi Railway Station for being sent to Dariyapur Station in Rae Bareli district. In this notice reference was also made to the earlier correspondence which the plaintiff had with the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Northern Railway, Varanasi. Reference was made to the notice given under Sec. 77 of the Railways Act. In this notice reference was also made to the earlier correspondence which the plaintiff had with the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Northern Railway, Varanasi. Reference was made to the notice given under Sec. 77 of the Railways Act. It was further made clear that for nondelivery of the goods at Dariyapur Railway Station, the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on 31st December, 1956. It was also clearly disclosed that the plaintiff proposed to file a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,527 (vide Ext. 42). 7. It is true that the numbers of the R. Rs. were not given in the notice, but there was hardly any dispute about the identity of the consignments in suit. It was never suggested on behalf of the respondents that due to the omission of the numbers of the R. Rs. in the notice, they could not trace out the missing wagons. It is an admitted fact that prior to the notice, the Railway Department had succeeded in tracing out the four missing wagons. In the circumstances, there could not be the least doubt about the nature of the plaintiffs claim which he proposed to prefer against the Railway Department. The lower appellate Court in support of its view, has mainly relied on the decision of this Court reported in Dominion of India v. Roop Chand, 1950 ALJ 595 .This case was decided by a single Judge. Similar question was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Harish Chand v. The Union of India, A.I.R. 1962 Alld. 307. It was held: " . .The only defect in the notice was that the number of the railway receipt had been given incorrectly .... It was not suggested on behalf of the railway authorities that on account of incorrect number of the railway receipt they were not able to trace the consignments .... In these circumstances the object of the notice was, in our opinion fulfilled and the defendant could not take refuge behind the highly technical objection that in the notice under Sec. 80, the number of the railway receipt had been mentioned incorrectly. The notice had to be interpreted keeping in view the other facts alleged in it, viz., number of packages in the consignment, nature of the goods booked, the date of booking, the station of booking and the station of delivery. The notice had to be interpreted keeping in view the other facts alleged in it, viz., number of packages in the consignment, nature of the goods booked, the date of booking, the station of booking and the station of delivery. No importance could in tire circumstances be attached to the incorrectness in the number of the railway receipt and on account of that incorrectness the notice could not be held to have become invalid altogether ....... It cannot, therefore, be said in the present case that the cause of action which was alleged in the notice was different from the cause of action which was set up in the plaint. In the present case there could be no doubt about the identity of the cause of action mentioned in the notice and the plaint. Simply because of the incorrectness of the number of the railway receipt, the cause of action could not be held to be different." 8. The same view was followed in another case reported in Firm Deokishan Srigopal v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1966 Alld. 16. 9. In Dhian Singh Sobha Singh v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 274 dealing with the question of notice under Sec. 80, C. P. C., it was held: Though the terms of Sec. 80 are to be strictly complied with, it does not mean that the terms of the notice should be scrutinised in a pedantic manner or in a manner completely divorced from commonsense." 10. Similar question was again considered in the case reported in State of Madras v. C.P. Agencies, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1309. The Lordships observed: "The object of section is manifestly to give the Government or the public officer sufficient notice of the case which is proposed to be brought against it or him so that it or he may consider the position and decide for itself or himself, whether the claim of the plaintiff should be accepted or resisted. In order to enable the Government or the public officer to arrive at a decision it is necessary that it or he should be informed of the nature of the suit proposed to be filed against it or him and the facts, on which the claim is founded and the precise reliefs asked for." 11. In order to enable the Government or the public officer to arrive at a decision it is necessary that it or he should be informed of the nature of the suit proposed to be filed against it or him and the facts, on which the claim is founded and the precise reliefs asked for." 11. The same question was again considered in the case reported in the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gundugola Venkata Suryanarayana Garu, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 11. It was held : "The object of the notice under Sec. 80 is to give to the Government or the public servant concerned an opportunity to reconsider its or his legal position and if that course is justified to make amends or settle the claim out of Court. The section is imperative and must undoubtedly be strictly construed; failure to serve a notice complying with the requirements of the statute will entail dismissal of the suit. But the notice must be reasonably construed. Every venial error or defect cannot be permitted to be treated as peg to hang a defence to defeat a just claim. In each case in considering whether the imperative provisions of the statute are complied with, the Court must face the following questions: (1) Whether the name, description and residence of the plaintiff are given so to enable the authorities to identify the persons serving the notice; (2) Whether the cause of action and the relief which the plaintiff claims are set out with sufficient particularity; (3) whether the notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of the appropriate authority mentioned in the section; and (4) whether the suit is instituted after the expiration of two months next after notice has been served, and the plaint contains a statement that such a notice has been so delivered or left. In construing the notice the Court cannot ignore the object of the Legislature to give to the Government or the public servant concerned an opportunity to reconsider its or his legal position. If on a reasonable reading but not so as to make undue assumptions the plaintiff is shown to have given the information which the statute requires him to give, any incidental defects or errors may be ignored................" 12. If on a reasonable reading but not so as to make undue assumptions the plaintiff is shown to have given the information which the statute requires him to give, any incidental defects or errors may be ignored................" 12. Applying the same principles to the facts of the present case, I feel satisfied that all the necessary particulars had been even in the notice sent under Sec. 80 of the C. P. C. Mere omission of the numbers of the R. Rs. in the said notice could not be treated as fatal to the plaintiffs just claim. In my opinion, the plaintiffs suit has been thrown out on quite inadequate grounds. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the order of the lower appellate Court is set aside. The plaintiff's suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,527 is decreed against defendant No. 3 with costs throughout. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to get interest at three per cent per annum, as ordered by the Munsif.