BADRI NARAYAN SAHU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit which hag given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff-appellant to recover from the defendant-respondent Union of India, as representing the East Indian Railway Administration, Rs. 1,051-14-0, as compensation for the loss of five bags of Shellac and also Rs. 16 on account of advocate's fee for sending a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the total claim laid being Rs. 1,067-14-0.

(2.) The facts about which there is no controversy are these: A consignment of 106 bags of Shellac was despatched from Grahwa Railway Station for Howrah on the 27th November, 1950, deliverable to the plaintiff's agent Messrs. D. Mukherjee and Co., of Calcutta. The plaintiff's agent took delivery, after obtaining a short delivery certificate from, the Goods Superintendent Howrah. The said plaintiff's agent, thereafter, preferred a claim for compensation on account of the loss of five bags of shellac under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act and demanded payment of Rs. 1,051-14-0 as the price thereof from the Chief Commercial Manager of the East Indian Railways. The Railway Authorities informed the plaintiff's agent on the 7th August, 1951 that the claim was not entertainable as the loss occurred from a running train. The plaintiff, thereupon, served a notice under Section So of the Code of Civil Procedure upon the defendant and instituted the present suit on the 12th February, 1952,

(3.) The defendant denied the liability for the claim and pleaded limitation. Both the Courts below concurrently found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover compensation from the Railway on account of the loss of the five bags of shellac but held that the suit was barred by limitation with this difference that, according to the trial Judge, Article 30 of the Limitation Act applied to the facts of the case, whereas, the learned Judge of the Court of appeal below has held that Article 31 of the Limitation Act governed the case.