ORDER R.S. Garg, J. 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28.2.1984 passed by the learned 2nd Civil Judge, Class I, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 125-B. 1982, directing return of the plaint in view of the bar contained under section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, and also being aggrieved by the order dated 19.7.1985 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 14/1984 by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, confirming the order passed by the learned Civil Judge. 2. Brief facts leading to the petition are that the petitioner had purchased a ticket for travelling in Express from Jabalpur to Gwalior. The compartment in which he was travelling caught lire near Mahoba (U.P.) railway station and the petitioner suffered loss of Rs. 5, 700/- as the belongings which he had and the suit case which carried his goods were burnt and also sued for damages to the extent of Rs. 1500/- as he has suffered mental shock and personal injuries. 3. The defendants, after putting in their appearance, submitted that the suit cannot be maintained in view of the bar contained under section 80 of the Indian Railway Act. It was contended by him that the suit falls within the mischief of section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act and it is the Claims Commissioner alone who has jurisdiction to hear and decide the claim. It was contended by the defendants that the Court would have no jurisdiction as the suit could only be filed either at the place where the accident took place or where the defendant resides or carries on business. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was required to file the suit at the place where the cause of action, i.e. damages suffered, accrued to him or where the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. The Court directed return of the plaint. 4. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The Court directed return of the plaint. 4. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The appellate Court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the suit in relation to personal belongings or the luggage carried by the petitioner/passenger would not be maintainable under section 80 of the Act because it only applies to the good booked and if the petitioner had filed the suit under the common law of torts, then because of the bar contained under section 19 C.P.C. the suit could not be filed. The appellate Court maintained the order passed by the trial Court. Being dissatisfied by the orders passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the correctness, validity and propriety of the said orders. 5. Shri Shroti learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the two Courts below have not properly appreciated the true scope and import of Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act and have also not appreciated the true intention of the Legislature and section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Shri Shroti further submits that the suit for compensation, for loss of life or personal injury to passenger or for loss, destruction, damage deterioration of non-delivery of animals or goods may be instituted against the railway administration form where the petitioner had purchased his ticket and as such the Court at Jabalpur had the fullest jurisdiction. None appeared to oppose the petition. 6. Section 80 of the Indian Railway Act reads as under: 80. Suits for compensation. - A suit for compensation for loss of the life of, or personal injury to, a passenger or, for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animal or goods may be instituted. None appeared to oppose the petition. 6. Section 80 of the Indian Railway Act reads as under: 80. Suits for compensation. - A suit for compensation for loss of the life of, or personal injury to, a passenger or, for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animal or goods may be instituted. (a) if the passenger was or the animals or goods were booked from one station to another on the railway of the same railway administration, against other railway administration; (b) if the passenger was or the animals or goods were booked through over the railway of two or more railway administration from which the passenger obtained his pass or purchased his ticket or to which the animals or goods were delivered for carriage, as the case may be or against the railway administration on whose railway the destination station lies, or the loss, injury destruction, damage or deterioration occurred; and, in either case, the suit may be instituted in a Court having jurisdiction over the place at which the passenger obtained his pass or purchased his ticket or the animals or goods were delivered for carriage, as the case may be, or over the place in which the destination station lies, or the loss, injury, destruction, damage or deterioration occurred. Section 82-A on which the respondents has placed reliance in the trial Court reads as under:- 82-A. Liability of railway administration in respect of accidents to trains carrying passengers. Section 82-A on which the respondents has placed reliance in the trial Court reads as under:- 82-A. Liability of railway administration in respect of accidents to trains carrying passengers. - (1) when in the course of working a railway, an accident occure, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, negligent or default on the part of the railway administration such as entitle a person who has been injured or has suffered loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, be liable to pay compensation to the extent set out in sub-section (2) and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident and for personal injury and loss, destruction or deterioration of animals or goods owned by the passenger and accompanying the passenger in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident. (2) The liability of a railway administration under this section shall in no case exceed rupees on lakh in respect of any person. It is to be noted that section 82-A is subservient to section 82-B because unless the Claims Commissioner is appointed for such local area or for such accident or accidents as may be specified in the circular, an application under section 82-A cannot be tiled before the Claims Commissioner. Shri Shroti submits that in regard to the accident or mishap, Claims Commissioner was not appointed, therefore, the petitioner was forced to take shelter under section 80 by tiling the suit before the Court. 7. According to section 80, a suit for compensation for loss of the life of, or personal injury to, a passenger or for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods, may be instituted but the institution of such suit is in relation to the passenger who was booked from one station to another on the railway of the same railway administration the suit can be in relation to animals or goods which were booked from one railway station to another on the railway of the same railway administration. Shri Shroti submits that in case where the goods are not booked through railway administration, even then suit for loss to the personal belongings or luggage carried by the petitioner would fall within the scope and sweep of section 80 of the Railways Act. The principles of Reddendo Singula Singulis would be applicable to a case as the present. Where there arc general words of description following an enumeration of particular things such general words are to be construed distributively and if the general words will apply to some things and not to others, the general words are to be applied to these things to which they will, and not to those to which they will not apply; that rule is beyond all controversy. Section 80 firstly provides a right to a person for personal injury or to his legal representatives for recovery of damages in case of his life and also provides and authorises a person who has suffered damages because of the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods. Clause (a) would certainly qualify right of the suit. If the opening words of section 80 are read with clause (a), it would provide two situation which can be emphasied as under: (a) A suit for compensation for loss of life of, or personal injury to, a passenger - if the passenger was booked from one station to another on the railway of the same rail way administration, against the railway administration, (b) a suit for compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animal or goods may be instituted if the animals or goods were booked from one station to another on the railway of the same railway administration, against that railway administration. It is clear from the language of section 80 that a suit for compensation, etc. in case of animals or goods can only be instituted under section 80, if the goods were booked, otherwise not. 8. Section 3, sub-section (9) of the Act defines 'goods' and the inclusive definition means any inanimate things of every kind. Section 80, in case of animals or goods would give right to institute a suit only if the animals or goods were so booked, otherwise not. In case of belongings or luggage permissible under the rules/circulars, a suit can only be filed under the common law of torts. Section 80, in case of animals or goods would give right to institute a suit only if the animals or goods were so booked, otherwise not. In case of belongings or luggage permissible under the rules/circulars, a suit can only be filed under the common law of torts. The liability of the railway would depend upon proof furnished by the plaintiff who had suffered the damages and prays for compensation. In case of goods or animals, which have been so booked, it is known to the parties that particular animals or goods were booked and in case of bailment, as the person booking the goods is a bailor and the railway administration being bails is lible to take care of the goods or in the event of happening of a particular incident, i.e. termination of journey of those animals or goods, the railway administration is liable to return the animals or goods. In case of personal belongings, the railway administration docs not become bailee nor does it take personal responsibility as it takes in the case of goods so booked. In case of tort, the plaintiff would be required to show that the railway administration was otherwise liable and because of the negligence of the railway administration he had suffered the loss. In case of section 80 the plaintiff is not required to prove negligence but in case of torts which is also known to be civil wrong, the plaintiff will have to prove negligence of the other party and the extent of damages suffered by him. 9. If a suit for loss or damage to the personal belongings or luggage carried by a passenger cannot be maintained under section 80, then no wrong can be found with the orders passed by the two Court. 10. Shri Shroti submits that as the petitioner had purchased the ticket at Jabalpur railway station, he is entitled to institute the suit at Jabalpur even if the fire broke as Mohaba. Shri Shroti wants to take advantage of section 80 which, in my opinion, the law does not permit. 10. Shri Shroti submits that as the petitioner had purchased the ticket at Jabalpur railway station, he is entitled to institute the suit at Jabalpur even if the fire broke as Mohaba. Shri Shroti wants to take advantage of section 80 which, in my opinion, the law does not permit. Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly speaks that where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business of personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted as the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts. Section 19 decides the forum where a suit for recovery of compensation in the form of damages is to be instituted. According to section 19, a suit based on tort or for recovery of compensation can be filed within the local limits of the place where the cause of action accrued, i.e. the wrong was done and at the option of the plaintiff can also be filed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court within whose local limits, the defendants resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. In the instant case, it is not in dispute before me that the fire broke in the compartment at Mahoba (U.P.). The cause of action as such occurred at Mahoba. The plaintiff would be entitled to file a suit where the wrong was done i.e. the cause of action accrued in his favour or at his option could file the suit in the Court within whose limits the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, i.e. where the head quarters of the railway administration is situated. Considered from either of the angle, the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable in the Jabalpur Court so far as it related to loss to his personal belongings or luggage carried by him. 11. The two Courts below have lost sight of the fact that in the suit, plaintiffs has claimed Rs. 1,500/- on the ground of mental shock and personal injuries. 11. The two Courts below have lost sight of the fact that in the suit, plaintiffs has claimed Rs. 1,500/- on the ground of mental shock and personal injuries. A case of mental shock and personal injury would certainly be a case falling within the ambit of a suit for compensation on the grounds of personal injury and it can certainly be instituted in a Court having territorial jurisdiction from where the passenger was booked from one station to another on the railway of the same railway administration, against that railway administration or in case where the passenger was booked through over to railway of two or more railway administrations, against the railway administration from which the passenger obtained his pass or purchased his ticket or against the railway administration on whose railway the destination station lies. It is thus clear that a suit for compensation for personal injury could certainly be filed in the Court having territorial jurisdiction over the railway station from where the petitioner had obtained his pass or purchased the ticket. In the instant case, the petitioner came with the case that he had purchased the ticket at the railway station Jabalpur, therefore, in my opinion. the suit for compensation for the personal injury would certainly be maintainable in the Court at Jabalpur. The orders passed by the two Courts below are maintained so far as they relate to compensation in relation to damage to the belongings or luggage carried by the petitioner but are set-aside so far as they relate to personal injury suffered by the petitioner. The trial Court is directed to re-register the suit at i.e. original number, issue notice to the other side for their appearance and after confining itself to the extent or damages for personal injury shall decide the matter in accordance with law. There shall be no orders as to costs. Security amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner, be refunded after due verification.