ORDER J.S. Trivedi, J. - Raw plaintain was booked on 3-10-62 at Bhusawal for being carried and delivered to the Plaintiff at Kashi, a station on the Northern Railway. The consignment Was booked under Parcel Way Bill for quick transit by passenger or Parcel Train as the goods were of perishable nature. The consignment in suit reached the destination station after a long time on 12-10-62 in a rotten condition. The Plaintiff then claimed damages from the Railway. The Railway sent a cheque for a sum of Rs. 4039.09 P. only in fell and final settlement of the claim. The letter of the Defendant dated 30-7-6 was replied by the Plaintiff by his letter dated 19-8-63. The Plaintiff stated in the letter that he is not prepared to accept the said sum of Rs. 4039.09 in full and final settlement. It was further mentioned in the letter that he is not prepared to accept any amount less than claimed by him and he will cash the cheque in part payment of his claim and file a suit for the recovery of the balance in case nothing was heard from the Defendant within a fortnight from the receipt of the letter. 2. The trial court decreed the Plaintiff's suit for the recovery of Rs. 1805.41 P. holding that the cheque was not accepted in full and final payment. In appeal the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and held that the offer being in full and final payment and the cheque having been cashed the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have accepted the amount in full and final payment of the claim, hence this Second Civil Appeal. 3. Two questions arise for decision in this appeal--(1) Whether the notice u/s 78-B of the Railways Act was a valid notice and (2) whether the acceptance of the cheque was unconditional and as such the Plaintiff-Appellant is not entitled to any sums. On the first question learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied on S.N. Dutt Vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 1961 SC 1449 and has contended that the notice being on behalf of Khalil Ahmad and Co. was bad. Notice u/s 78-B is Ext. A-1 on record. It is given on behalf of Khalil Ahmad and Co. and signed for Khalil Ahmad and Co. by Khalil Ahmad proprietor. Union of India (UOI), AIR 1961 SC 1449 and has contended that the notice being on behalf of Khalil Ahmad and Co. was bad. Notice u/s 78-B is Ext. A-1 on record. It is given on behalf of Khalil Ahmad and Co. and signed for Khalil Ahmad and Co. by Khalil Ahmad proprietor. The notice dearly indicates that Khalil Ahmad was the proprietor of Khalil Ahmad and Co. The subsequent notice given u/s 80 was from Khalil Ahmad, sole proprietor of the firm. The case relied by the Appellant, therefore, is distinguishable and the principle laid down in Raghunath Das Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 1969 SC 674 fully applies to the facts of the present case. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has also contended that the notice u/s 80 of the CPC was mandatory and had to comply with all the particulars. He has not been able to satisfy me as to which particulars are lacking in the notice u/s 80 of Code of Civil Procedure. He has next contended that the cause of action shown in the notice was 12-10-62 when the consignment arrived at Kashi station and the suit being for a lesser amount the suit was bad on that account. I am not prepared to accept that contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent. The claim was clearly indicated in the notice. Thereafter a sum of Rs. 4039.09 was deducted towards payment. Therefore, it was not obligatory on the Plaintiff to file a suit for the full amount and pay a Court-fee with the result that his claim for the amount which he had already realised should be dismissed. 5. The next question for consideration is whether the sum of Rs. 1039.09 was accepted in full and final payment of the claim. As stated above there is no doubt that the offer was in full and final payment but at the same time there was a counter offer with a condition and in the counter offer it was clearly stated that the cheque would be cashed in part payment of the claim in case no reply was received within fifteen days. If the Rly. Administration was not prepared to accept the counter offer it was open to the Rly. Administration to step the encashment of the cheque or give a reply to the Plaintiff. If the Rly. Administration was not prepared to accept the counter offer it was open to the Rly. Administration to step the encashment of the cheque or give a reply to the Plaintiff. The case is not one where the offer has been accepted but the case is one where the offer was not being accepted and a counter offer made. In case after the counter offer the Plaintiff had not cashed the cheque and had filed a suit for the whole amount it would have been open to the Defendant-Respondent to contend that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the costs when the counter offer was not repudiated by them. The lower appellate Court was, therefore, wrong in holding that the offer was unconditional and was accepted by the Plaintiff. 6. The result, therefore, is that the decree of the lower appellate court is set aside and the decree of the trial court restored and the suit of the Plaintiff shall stand decreed for Rs. 1805. 41 with proportionate costs throughout.