The Agent and Manager, S.I. Ry. Co. vs Vengu Pattar, Managing Partner in the Firm of P.K. Vengu Iyer and Others

Phillips, J.—The Subordinate Judge''s decree is objected to on the ground that the notice contemplated by Sections 77 and 140 of the

Railways Act was not duly given by the plaintiff. No doubt there are several rulings that the notice must be on the Agent of the Railway Nadirchand

Shaha v. Wood ILR (1907) C. 194, G.I.P. Railway Co. v. Dewasi ILR (1907) B. 534 G.I.P. Railway Co. v. Chandrabai ILR (1906) A. 552 but

in Periannan Chetty v. S.I. Ry. Co. ILR (1898) M. 137 the opinion of the learned judges was that it was sufficient to show that the Agent actually

did get notice, whether in the manner prescribed in Section 140 or otherwise, and in Woods v. Maker Ali Behari (1908) 13 C.W.N. 24 the

learned Judges held that a notice to the Traffic Manager when he was empowered by the Agent to dispose of the claim and action by him was

sufficient notice. In this case also the Traffic Manager had authority from the Agent to dispose of the plaintiff''s claim and he would enquire into the

plaintiff''s claim. If the ruling in Woods v. Maher Ali Behari (1908) 13 C.W.N. 24 is accepted the Sub-Judge''s order is correct. Without,

however, coming to a decision on the correctness of that ruling I think that in this case where a Railway Company relies upon a mere technicality to

defeat a just claim by a member of the public and where it has only come into court long after the period usually allowed in practice for the

admission of revision petitions, I should not be justified in interfering in revision. The petition is dismissed with posts.