ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants against order dated 11th January, 1991 passed by the Railways Claim Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (in short; the Tribunal) in Application No. 705/AT/RCT/NGP/90. It is the case of the appellants that they have filed a claim for non delivery of consignment of power cables booked from Tatanagar to Kanhan under Railway receipt No. 410316, dated 28/4/1980 as the said consignment had been lost in transit and that the Railway administration is responsible for the same. The amount claimed by the appellants was to the tune of Rs. 63,472.88 for the goods and Rs. 200/for notice charges. After the statutory notice was served on the respondents, the claim was put forth by the appellants. The respondents filed their written statement denying the allegations in to and contended that the suit is not maintainable in the present form and also took a plea of non joinder of necessary party. 2. During the pendency of the said proceedings, permission was sought by the appellants for correcting the description of respondent No. 3, which came to be rejected. After the evidence was recorded and issues were framed, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellants. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that there is no justification for the Tribunal to dismiss the claim of the appellants on the specific ground that the Union of India was not a party to the proceedings. 4. The learned Counsel further submits that the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the goods were actually dispatched by the appellants and on account of non delivery, damages had occasioned to the appellants and as such the claim of the appellants ought to have been granted. 5. The learned Counsel submitted that the Union of India is to be sued through the Secretary of the Ministry of Railways, who was respondent No. 3 to the proceedings and merely because the same was not described as Union of India, there was no justification to dismiss the claim of the appellants. It is further submitted that it was only a question of misdiscription of respondent No. 3 which could be rectified at any stage of proceedings and in fact, the application to that effect was filed by the appellants which came to be rejected and the same has been assailed in the present appeal. It is further submitted that it was only a question of misdiscription of respondent No. 3 which could be rectified at any stage of proceedings and in fact, the application to that effect was filed by the appellants which came to be rejected and the same has been assailed in the present appeal. The learned Counsel further submitted that the judgments of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 2538 – The State of Kerala Vs. General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present proceedings the Secretary of the Railway department was admittedly a party and in the case before the Apex Court Union of India was not even a party. The learned Counsel further submitted that the impugned order is to be set aside and claim of the appellants deserves to be granted. In support of is submissions, the learned Counsel has relied upon the judgments reported in AIR 1990 GAUHATI 74 – Gopesh Chandra Das Vs. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam & others, AIR 1981 RAJASTHAN 47 – Pusha Ram Vs. Modern Construction Co. (P) Ltd., Kota and in unreported judgment in First Appeal No. 670 of 1991 dated 10/8/2009 (M.S.E.B. Vs. Union of India & another). 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents tried to support the impugned order, but, however, fairly admitted the fact that in the present case there was misdescription of respondent No. 3, as in fact, the Secretary of the Ministry of Railways who represents the Union of India was already a party to the proceedings. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal had not adjudicated upon the amount claimed by the appellants and as such, the matter will have to be decided afresh with regard to the quantum of the amount to be paid to the appellants. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of record, the only point for determination in the present appeal is: Whether the Railways Claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim of the appellants on the ground that the Union of India was not a party to the proceedings? 8. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of record, the only point for determination in the present appeal is: Whether the Railways Claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim of the appellants on the ground that the Union of India was not a party to the proceedings? 8. On perusal of the impugned order I find that though the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellants have proved that they have sustained loss, while deciding issue No. 5, only because the Union of India was not made a party, the suit was held to be not maintainable. There is no dispute that under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a notice to be served on the Central Government and when it relates to the Railways, it is to be issued to the General Manager of Railways. Accordingly, a notice to that effect was admittedly issued by the appellant to such General Manager. While filing the suit, the appellants have filed the suit against the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, without describing respondent No. 3 as Union of India as well as the General Manager of the South Eastern Railways. The Secretary, Ministry of Railways is an organ of the Union of India transacting its functions on behalf of the Government. The description given in the cause title as Secretary instead of Union of India by itself may not be decisive, considering the facts of the present case. As such, it is obvious that there was misdescription on the part of the appellants while describing respondent No. 3 in the claim petition filed by them before the Tribunal. Once a notice was rightly issued to the concerned Officer, there was no justification for the Tribunal in refusing the request of the appellant to rectify the description of respondent No. 3. This Court in judgment dated 10/8/2009 (cited supra) in para 8 held thus: “The Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the amendment application filed by the appellant Board, specially when the respondent had not opposed the same by filing a reply to the amendment application. The Tribunal ought to have held that this was a bona fide mistake and nonjoinder of the party was due to oversight, particularly when the appellant Board had, on earlier occasions, joined the Union of India and certain officers in the earlier claim petitions. The Tribunal ought to have held that this was a bona fide mistake and nonjoinder of the party was due to oversight, particularly when the appellant Board had, on earlier occasions, joined the Union of India and certain officers in the earlier claim petitions. If this was so, the submissions made on behalf of the appellant Board that the mistake of nonjoinder of Union of India through the Railway Administration as a party was a bona fide mistake and was due to oversight, ought to have been accepted. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the application filed by the appellant Board for amendment of the claim petition and also ought to have applied the proviso to Section 21 of the Limitation Act 1963 to the facts of this case to hold that the claim petition was instituted against the Union of India through the Railway Administration on the date of the institution of the claim petition. The Tribunal ought to have held that the mistake was made in good faith. A part of the claim of the appellant Board was virtually admitted by the respondent in this case. In such circumstances, it was, all the more, necessary for the Tribunal to have allowed the amendment application specially when on the earlier occasion, the appellant Board had joined the Union of India with or without the Railway Officers as parties to the claim petition. In the present case the Secretary of the Ministry of Railways was already a party and there is no dispute that he represents the Union of India and there was only a misdescription of respondent No. 3 in the cause title. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (1996) 6 S. C.C. 229 in case of Secretary, Ministry of Works & Housing Govt. of India & others Vs. Mohinder Singh Jagdev & others has at para 5 held thus: “Having given due consideration to the contentions of the counsel and having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, first question that arises is whether the appeal has been competently laid? It is not disputed and cannot be disputed that the Union of India can lay the suit and be sued under Article 300 of the Constitution in relation to its affairs. It is not disputed and cannot be disputed that the Union of India can lay the suit and be sued under Article 300 of the Constitution in relation to its affairs. Under Section 79 read with Order 27 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, in a suit, by or against the Central Government, the authority to be named as plaintiff/defendant shall be the Union of India. The Secretary, Ministry of Works and Housing is a limb of the Union of India transacting its functions on behalf of the Government under the Department concerned as per the business rules framed under Article 77 of the Constitution. Therefore, the appeal came to be filed by the Secretary, though wrongly described. The nomenclature given in the cause title as Secretary instead of the Union of India, is not conclusive. The meat of the matter is that the Secretary representing the Government of India had filed the appeal obviously on behalf of the Union of India. Accordingly, we reject the first contention”. In view of the said judgment of the Apex Court, there is no justification at all on the part of the Tribunal to refuse the amendment application to rectify the description of respondent No.3 as Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways. 9. In the judgment of Gauhati High Court in the case of Gopesh Chandra Das Vs. Chief Secretary (supra) it has been held that when the Secretary of the Government has been impleaded as a party to the proceedings in his capacity as representative of the State, the requirement of Section 79 was fulfilled and any other construction of the plaint will be contrary to the spirit of Section 79 and retard the cause of justice. In the present case, such Secretary was duly served but he chose to remain absent and did not raise any grievance with regard to his impleadment in the said proceedings. As such, misdescription of respondent No. 3 cannot be construed to be fatal to the proceedings initiated by the appellants. 10. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The State of Kerala Vs. As such, misdescription of respondent No. 3 cannot be construed to be fatal to the proceedings initiated by the appellants. 10. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The State of Kerala Vs. The G. M., Southern Railway (supra) relied by the Tribunal were on different facts in as much as the Apex Court has held that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the application as under Article 131 (a) of the Constitution a suit by a State against Union of India could only lie in the Supreme Court. The Secretary of the Ministry was not made a party to the proceedings before the Apex Court. This is not the situation in the present case where there was only a misdescription of respondent No. 3 in as much as the Secretary, Ministry of Railways was made a party, who was representing the Central Government. Such misdescription could have been rectified by the Tribunal by allowing the application filed by the appellants for rectifying the description. The order of the Tribunal dated 25/11/1990 to the extent refusing permission to correct the description of the respondent cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside and the application for such amendment filed by the appellant ought to have been granted. 11. Dealing with the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants to the effect that in view of the finding of the Tribunal while deciding issue No. 5 that the appellant was entitled for the damages and as such the amount as claimed by the appellant is to be granted, on perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that there is no adjudication on the amount or quantum of damages to which the appellants were entitled on account of non delivery of the consignment as claimed by them. For such adjudication, the matter deserves to be remanded to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations made herein above, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 12. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 11/01/1991 passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Application No. 705/AT/RCT/NGP/90 is quashed and set aside. The appellants are permitted to correct the description of respondent No. 3. 12. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 11/01/1991 passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Application No. 705/AT/RCT/NGP/90 is quashed and set aside. The appellants are permitted to correct the description of respondent No. 3. The matter is remanded to the Railways Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur to decide the claim of the appellants afresh in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to the costs.