The limitation period for a suit against a carrier for compensation for losing or injuring goods under Article 30 of Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act, 1908, starts from the date of loss or injury to the goods, not from the date of rejection of the claim by the carrier.

Sinha, J.

1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff who had brought a suit for compensation arising out of a damage caused to a consignment despatched by defendant No. 3 from Ankapalle railway station on the M. S. M. Railway on the 6th of October 1942, to the plaintiff to be delivered at Ranchi railway station on the B. N. Railway. The consignment consisted of 700 tins of ground nut oil, out of which at the time of delivery on 28-10-1942, it was found that 175 tins were badly damaged and were altogether empty.

2. The respondents pleaded a number of defences including one of limitation.

3. The first Court decreed the plaintiffs suit. On appeal the learned Additional Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. It has been held that the suit is barred under Article 30 of Schedule 1, Limitation Act.

4. Mr. Mitter, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that after the delivery was taken on 28-10-1942, his client had to engage himself in correspondence with the defendant companies, and ultimately on 21-9-1943, the claim was rejected by the defendant No. 1. The suit having been filed, it is Said on 19-1-1944, it was not barred by limitation.

5. Mr. Mitter contends that the limitation in this case would run from 21-9-1943, the date when the claim, of the plaintiff was finally rejected by the B. N. Railway Company. In my judgment, there is no substance in this contention. Article 30, Schedule 1, Limitation Act, prescribes one year from the date when the loss or injury occurs against a carrier for compensation for losing or injuring goods. When the consignment arrived at Ranchi and delivery was taken on 28-10-1942, all these 700 tins were found in the wagon. Out of these 700 tins, 175 tins were, however, empty. The question arises, whether in the condition in which the consignment arrived, there was any room left for doubt as to the contents of the 175 tins; the 175 tins were found in damaged condition, and the only reasonable inference was that the contents of those tins had been lost due to leakage. Therefore, the loss was due to leakage before the delivery was taken; the leakage might be during the whole course of transit from the station of despatch to the station of destination.

6. The loss, therefore, must have been previous to the time the delivery of the other tins was taken. In that view of the matter, the plaintiff need not have waited to be told that the contents of the 175 tins had been lost. If that were so, then in my judgment, the time for a suit for compensation for the loss started running latest on 28-10-1942, and the suit having been filed on 19-1-1944, it was obviously barred under Article 30 mentioned above as having been filed more than one year after the date of loss.

7. In the view which I have taken, it is not at all necessary to refer to a number of cases decided on the applicability or otherwise of Article 31, Schedule 1, Limitation Act. but as some of the cases have bearing upon the view which I have taken, I would like to menlion them. Before I do that, I would like to mention that Article 31 prescribes one year for a suit from the date when the goods ought to be delivered against a carrier for compensation for non-delivery of, or delay in delivering goods. It will be Seen that the two Articles 30 and 31 are quite different: one refers to the loss or injury to the goods, the other refers to non-delivery or the delay in delivering the goods. In the one case, the goods have been either lost or damaged and in the other the goods have not been delivered, or there has been, delay in delivering the goods.

8. Mr. Mitter has referred me io a decision of this Court in -- B. & N. W. Rly. Co. Ltd. V/s. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1933 Pat 45 (A). That was, a case where Article 31 was held applicable on the facts of that case. In that case, on the 27-8-1922, a consignment of 3,229 bundles of round steel rods weighing 851 maunds and also four wooden frame