UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHAH TRADING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendant arises out of a money suit, which was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2107/03 nP. as compensation for damages caused to a consignment of bins. The case of the plaintiff was that it had booked 25 baskets of bins at Manoharpur a Railway Station on the South Eastern Railways for being carried by a passenger train and for being delivered to it at Birsa, another railway station on the aforesaid Railway. The consignment, comprised of the aforesaid baskets of bins reached Birsa, according to the plaintiff's case, in a rain damaged condition on account of the servants of the Railway Administration concerned not having given adequate protection to the consignment against the ravages of the monsoon during the time when it was in their control. It is admitted that the consignment was booked on the 15th June, 1958, and it arrived at Birsa Railway Station on the 18th June, 1958, and that an open delivery was given to the plaintiff on the 18th July, 1958. The damages assessed by the Traffic Inspector under the damages and deficiency certificate were at 6% in respect of 768 bundles of biris and 50% on 513 bundles of biris. The plaintiff claimed the price of the biris at the rate of Rs. 6/-per thousand, and on calculation he instituted the suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount of" Rs. 2107.03 nP. The defence inter alia was that the suit was barred by limitation and that the claim of the plaintiff was exaggerated, the price of biris given in the schedule of the plaint being not correct. The trial Court found on all the points in favour of the plaintiff except on the point of the price of biris. It held that the suit was not barred by limitation and fixed the price of biris at the rate of Rs. 4/- per thousand and not at the rate of Rs. 6/- per thousand as claimed by the plaintiff. Accordingly it decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part with proportionate cost. On appeal by the defendant, the judgment and decree of the trial Court have been affirmed. Hence this second appeal in this Court.

(2.) Two points have been urged before me namely, (1) that the Courts below have erred in holding that the suit was not barred by limitation, and (2) that the decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 1912.06 nP. as granted by the trial Court was not in accordance with the judgment. On a correct calculation the decree should have been for Rs. 1432.20 nP. only.

(3.) The main question for determination is about limitation. There is no dispute that Article 30 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the facts of this case. Under the said Article, the limitation against a carrier for compensation for losing OF injuring goods is one year from, the date when the "loss or injury occurs. Under Section 15 (2) of the Limitation Act read with Section 80 of the Code, of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff will be entitled to a deduction or extension of two months. Thus, damages can only be awarded in respec of loss or injury, which has occurred within fourteen months of the suit. The Court of appeal below has held on the basis of the decision in Union of India v. Gujarat Tobacco Co., AIR 1955 Cal 448 that Limitation, would begin to run in this case from the date on which the open delivery in respect of the consignment was given to the plaintiff that is, from 18th July, 1958, and the, suit, having been filed on the 17th September, 1959, was, accordingly, within the time. The following may be usefully quoted from the decision in the aforesaid Calcutta case : -