BALCHAND BADRIPRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts involved in this Rule are practically admitted and upon those facts the only issue of law which arises is the issue of limitation upon which the two Courts below have taken two divergent views.

(2.) The petitioner firm was the holder and endorsee of an invoice and railway receipt in respect of 89 bales of jute dispatched from Forbes Ganj to Cossipore Road on the then East Indian Railway. The entire consignment was delivered on 13-9-1951 when it "was found that 26 bales of Jute had arrived in a wet condition. A damage certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Goods Supervisor of Coosipore Road on 27-10-1951 assessing damage at 20 per cent of the value of the damaged bales each of which weighed 3 1/2 mds. The petitioner firm wrote several letters to the railway administration for payment of damages calculated at Rs. 1,001/- but the claim was repudiated on 14-1-1952. So the petitioner firm instituted this suit on 2-1-1953 for recovery of the above amount.

(3.) The only defence of substance raised by the Union of India as representing the railway was that the suit was barred by limitation inasmuch the suit was not instituted within one year from the date of delivery of the goods which was 13-9-1951. The trial Judge held that limitation would run from that date, but the damage certificate amounted to an acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of 8. 19, Limitation Act, and had saved limitation. The Full Bench which heard the matter under Section 38, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, took a different view of the effect and implication of the damage certificate holding that it did not amount to an acknowledgment of liability and in that view of the matter dismissed the suit. The petitioner has come up to this Court in revision challenging the legality and propriety of the order- of the Full Bench.