The period of limitation for a suit for damages due to non-delivery of goods by a railway administration runs from the date of rejection of the claim by the railway, not from the date of short delivery.

S.Naqui Imam, J.

1. The defendant, the Union of India as owner of the North Eastern Railway (formerly O. and T. Railway), Eastern Railway (formerly E. I. Railway), Central Railway (formerly G. I. P. Railway) and Western Railway (formerly B. B. and C. I. Railway) Administrations, is the appellant. The plaintiff, a firm known as Textile-Trading Company carrying on business of cloth at Birganj, Post Office Raxual, is the respondent. The plaintiff had brought a suit for damages on account of non-delivery of a part of the consignment by the defendant who had acted as a carrier for the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiffs case , shortly put, is that it carries on cloth business in Birganj in the name of Textile Trading Company and that it had purchased sixty-seven bales of cotton goods from Babana Trading Company Limited, Bombay and entrusted the same with the defendant to be delivered to the plaintiff at Raxaul, On 15-8-1950, only 64 bales out of the 67 bales of cotton goods were delivered to the plaintiff which was granted a certificate of shortage of three bales of cloth which could not be delivered to it. The plaintiff preferred a claim demanding a sum of Rs. 2,824 annas 13 and 6 pies as damages for non-delivery of the three bales of cotton goods. The defendant, however, assured the plaintiff that the matter was being investigated and asked for the invoice. The plaintiff was kept in suspense till 9-7-1951 when defendant No. 1 finally refused to entertain the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, accordingly, on receipt of the letter of refusal, sent a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As the defendant did not pay the claim of the plaintiff in spite of this notice, the plaintiff brought the present suit against the defendant,

3. The case of the defendant, in the main, Is that the plaintiff has no right to sue and the suit is not maintainable, that the Suit is barred by limitation, that the bales were lost in running train theft and hence the plaintiff was not entitled to any damage and that the notices under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure and Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act were defective and not valid.

4. The learned Munsif, it appeals, found that the notices were valid and properly served and that the loss was not occasioned by running train theft but ho held that the suit was barred by limitation and was not maintainable. Hence he dismissed the suit. The appellate court upheld the findings of the trial court that the notices were valid and property served and that the loss was not occasioned by running train theft but held that the suit was not barred by limitation and that it was maintainable. Hence, it decreed the plaintiffs suit.

5. Before me, the only point taken by the appellant is that the suit is barred by limitation and that the finding of the appellate court to that effect is not correct and should be set aside.

6. In order to appreciate the point raised by the appellant, certain dates have to be mentioned. The goods in question were despatched on the 27th July, 1950 and on the 15th August, 1950, the short delivery was made to the plaintiff that is to say, instead of 67 bales of cotton goods, only 64 bales were delivered to the plaintiff. On 6-10-1950, the plaintiff made a claim for compensation for the goods lost and on the 9th July, 1951, the claim put forward by the plaintiff was rejected by the Railway. The suit was instituted on 20-11-1951. The point that has been raised before me is that the period of limitation ran from the 15th of August, 1950, and, if that is correct, then the suit having been instituted on 20-11-1951, was clearly barred by limitation under Article 30 of the Limitation Act which permits a period of one year only.

The point, however, is whether limitation runs from 6-10-1950 or from 9-7-3951. If limitation runs from 9th of July, 1951 that is to say, when the claim of the plaintiff was rejected by the Railway, then the suit was well within time. The appellate c