The period of limitation for a suit against a railway administration for loss or injury to goods begins to run from the time when the loss or injury occurs, and not from the time when the loss or injury becomes known to the plaintiff or the time when the injured goods are delivered to the consignee.

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff, a bangle seller of Amadalavalsa purchased glass bangles at Ferozabad under bills Exs. A-9 to A-27 for a sum of Rs. 56,837-04. He booked a wagon for consignment of the bangles from Ferozabad to Srikakulam under RR. No. 434461 and invoice No. 3/3-6-64. The forwarding note was Ex. B-l. On 22-6-1964 there was a collision of trains at Ganguti Station due according to the plaintiff, to the negligence of the railway servants. The wagon carrying the glass bangles was involved in the accident and some of the cases of bangles were broken. Later the bangles were transferred to another wagon by the railway authorities along with other commodities like bags of dhal, etc. The consignment reached Srikakulam on 25-7-1964 and was unloaded on 27-7-1964. The plaintiff took open assessment delivery of the consignment. More than half the bangles were damaged. In the Damage Certificate Ex. A-2 issued by the railway authorities the "hijack" value of the bangles was mentioned as Rupees 56. 837-04 and the value of the undamaged stock delivered to plaintiff was shown as Rs. 27,752-87. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to get Rs. 27,754-87 being the value of the damaged stock. He also claimed that he was entitled to get the cost of repacking the bundles and half the railway freight. After issuing notice under Section 80 C. P. C. the suit was filed on 4-9-1and67 to recover a sum of Rs. 32,860-87.

( 2 ) THE railway administration filed a written statement contesting the suit it was claimed that the damage was not due to the negligence of the Railway servants, but was providential. It was pleaded that the value of the entire consignment had been declared by the consignor as Rs. 25,000 in the forwarding note and, therefore, it was not open to the plaintiff to claim that the- value of the consignment was Rs. 56,837-04. Since the plaintiff admitted that the value of the undamaged stock delivered to him was Rs. 27,752-87 nothing more was due to the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff not having complied with the provisions of Section 77-B of the Indian Railways Act the defendant was protected from liability. It was further pleaded that the damage was due to the defective packing and not due to the negligence of the railway servants. It was finally pleaded that the suit was barred by time. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the suit was not barred by time and that there was no failure to comply with the provisions of Section 77-B of the Indian Railways Act. He held that the damage to the bangles was due to the collision of trains and that the collision was due to the negligence of the railway servants. He held that the actual value of the consignment was Rs. 56,837-04 but that the plaintiff was precluded from claiming any sum by way of value of the damaged stock in view of the fact that he declared the entire value of the stock as Rs. 25,000 which was less than the admitted value of the undamaged stock delivered to him. He relied on the decision of Mack J. in Ohunilal v. Governor General in Council (AIR 1949 Mad 754) and the observations of the Patna High Court in Sarabji Dada Bai v. B. N. Rly. (AIR 1and36 Pat 393 ).

( 3 ) WE may straightway say that the learned Subordinate Judge was in error in holding that the plaintiff was estopped from claiming the value of the damaged stock in view of the declaration made by him that the entire value of the consignment was only Rs. 25,000 though the actual value was Rs. 56,837-04. The learned Subordinate Judge himself observed that the plaintiff was under no obligation to mention the value of the consignment in the forwarding note as the value of each of the packages was less than Rs. 500. We may mention here that under Section 77-B of the Indian Railways Act when any articles mentioned in the II Schedule are contained in any parcel or package delivered to a railway administration to be carried by the railway and the value of such articles in the parcel o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document