34. This revision arises from a suit filed by the present applicant in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge, Simla, to recover an amount of Rs. 199/5/- from the Dominion of India being the alleged value of a trunk and its contents booked by the plaintiff from Kalka to Dharampore on 18-6-1947 on the ground of non-delivery.
35. The defendant raised a number of objections to the suit claiming 'inter alia' that there was no notice under Section 11, Railways Act, and that the notice under Section 80, Civil P. C., was defective. The learned Judge's judgment is not easy to understand. He seems to have accepted that no notice under Section 77, Railways Act, was necessary but that the notice under Section 80 of the Code was defective as it was addressed to the Secretary in charge of the Railway, Dominion of India, and was not addressed to the Dominion of India. He also seems to have found a defect in the form of the suit as the Dominion of India purports to have been sued not 'simpliciter' but through the East Punjab Railways. In the result he dismissed the suit.
36. When the matter came up first before me an argument was advanced regarding the notice under Section 77, Railways Act. It was claimed on behalf of the Dominion that absence of such notice was fatal to the suit. The matter was referred by me to a Full Bench which has held that no notice under Section 77 is required when the claim is for non-delivery.
37. Two other objections against notice under Section 80 of the Code have now been urged. It is argued that under the amendment made in the year 1948 in the case of a suit against the Dominion where it relates to a railway the notice is to be delivered to or left at the office of the General Manager of that railway. The notice in the present case was addressed both to the Secretary in charge of Railways, Dominion of India, Delhi, and to the General Manager, East Punjab Railway, Delhi. It purports to be a notice to Government and to be notice of suit. I am not able to understand what the trial Court said when it remarked: 'Then the prayer is not demanding the money but the suit is to be filed in respect of missing trunk.' To the notice was appended a list of the alleged contents of the trunk with their values and it is clear that the plaintiff proposed to sue for this amount if his claim was not settled. The notice satisfied all other requirements of Section 80 and, in my opinion, is a perfectly valid notice.
38. There remains only the quantum of the claim. The plaintiff gave evidence of his father as to the value of the articles. It might be said that this evidence was not all the evidence which could have been given but there seems to have been little attempt to show by cross-examination that the valuation could not be accepted. The claim could hardly be called a large claim and while of course there is possibility of exaggeration even in small claims I think the plaintiff's case must be accepted at its face value.
39. In the result, therefore, I make the rule-absolute, set aside the order of dismissal and decree the plaintiff's suit for Rs. 199/5/- with costs of the suit and in this court, the latter of which I assess at Rs. 30/-.