Law: Railways Act (IX of 1890)

Section: 77

  P L D 1956 Karachi 402         Railways Act (IX of 1890), S. 77-Notice to Manager of Railway complying with requirements of S. 80, Civil P. C. as amended by Act VII of 1948-Whether two separate notices essential.   Under section 77 of the Railways Act, notice is to be served on the Manager of a Railway while section 80, Civil P.C. as amended by Act VII of 1948 requires the notice under it to be left with the General Manager of the Railway concerned. Both are apparently the same as officers and hence a notice under section 77, Railways Act satisfies the provisions of both section 77 Railways Act and section 80, Civil P. C.   Goods Tariff Part I-A, R. 29-Inconsistent with S. 54 Railways Act (IX of 1890)-Validity.   The contract of the Railway is not only to carry but also to deliver the goods, and therefore the liability of the Railway extends to a reasonable time after the arrival of the goods at the destination.   Section 54 Railways Act contemplated rules prescribing general conditions with regard to receiving, forwarding and delivering of goods by the Railway and if the rules attempt to cut down the definition of delivery they become inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and bad. The period of 24 hours prescribed is inconsistent with the responsibility of the Railway to deliver within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time necessarily depends upon the facts of each case. Rule 29 (2) Goods Tariff Part I-A purports to curtail in point of time the Railway's statutory liability and is there fore invalid.   Sandhya Trading Co. v. Governor-General, Dominion of India A I R 1950 Cal. 426, The Government of the Province of Bombay v. Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia and others P L D 1949 P C 31, Bengal and N.-W. Railway and another v. Mulchand I L R 42 All. 655 at 658, Sohan Pal Munna Lal v. The East Indian Railway Company I L R 44 All. 218 at 226, Governor -General in Council v. L. Jagannath A I R 1943 Lah. 244, hidya Sagar v. Governor-General in Council A I R 1949 Lah. 166 and (Firm) Balakram Atmaram v. Secretary of State A I R 1935 All. 900.     JUDGMENT   VELLANI, J.--The plaintiff has filed…