UNION OF INDIA Vs. GAURI SHANKER BADRI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga, setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif of Darbhanga, who dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of a certain amount as compensation for loss caused to a consignment of 151 bags of flour booked at Marufganj out-agency in Patna City, for carriage to Sakri railway station, under a Railway receipt dated 19-8-1957. The plaintiffs, who were the purchasers for value, could not get delivery of the consignment from the consignor for a long time and they then sent their servant (P.W. 4) for making enquiry. It transpired during the enquiry that the consignment had been unloaded at Muzaffarpur and kept there on the railway platform uncovered, uncared for an exposed to rain and sun. This was in October, 1957. On 19-11-1957 the plaintiffs, on receiving information from P.W. 4, wrote a letter to the Regional Traffic Superintendent. Muzaffarpur, drawing his attention to the condition of the goods lying there. On some action having been taken on the same date by the Regional Traffic Superintendent, the goods were moved to Sakri railway station where the same arrived on 26-11-1937. The plaintiffs then claimed assessment delivery and the same was made by the railway authorities at Sakri on the 21st January, 1958. After notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, the present suit was instituted on the 13th March, 1959.

(2.) All these facts were admitted except the title of the plaintiffs in the goods. The Union of India asserted that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs had no title to the goods. The plea regarding question of compensation and other matters were also taken; but the same were not raised either in this Court or in the lower appellate court and it is, therefore, unnecessary to mention the same.

(3.) Both the courts below found, on the basis of documentary as well as oral evidence, that the title to the goods was in the plaintiffs and, therefore, the plaintiff-firm were entitled to sue. On the question of limitation the trial court was of the view that, inasmuch as the plaintiffs were aware through their servant about the damage to the goods at Muzaffarpur Railway station in October, 1957, the suit was barred by limitation-the period of limitation prescribed under Article 30 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, being one year from the date when the loss or injury to the goods occurred. The lower appellate court, however, was of a different view, mainly on the basis of Ext. 3, the assessment delivery signed by Claims Inspector.