The period of limitation for a suit for compensation for non-delivery of goods under Article 31 of the Limitation Act is one year from the date when the goods ought to be delivered, and the date of refusal by the Railway Administration to pay compensation is not the starting point of limitation unless it discloses an acknowledgment of liability or encourages the plaintiff to entertain a hope that his claim would be entertained.

Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. The suit which hag given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff-appellant to recover from the defendant-respondent Union of India, as representing the East Indian Railway Administration, Rs.1,051-14-0, as compensation for the loss of five bags of Shellac and also Rs.16 on account of advocates fee for sending a notice under Sec.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the total claim laid being Rs.1,067-14-0.

2. The facts about which there is no controversy are these: A consignment of 106 bags of Shellac was despatched from Grahwa Railway Station for Howrah on the 27th November, 1950, deliverable to the plaintiffs agent Messrs. D. Mukherjee and Co. , of Calcutta. The plaintiffs agent took delivery, after obtaining a short delivery certificate from, the Goods Superintendent Howrah. The said plaintiffs agent, thereafter, preferred a claim for compensation on account of the loss of five bags of shellac under Sec.77 of the Indian Railways Act and demanded payment of Rs.1,051-14-0 as the price thereof from the Chief Commercial Manager of the East Indian Railways. The Railway Authorities informed the plaintiffs agent on the 7th August, 1951 that the claim was not entertainable as the loss occurred from a running train. The plaintiff, thereupon, served a notice under Section So of the Code of Civil Procedure upon the defendant and instituted the present suit on the 12th February, 1952,

3. The defendant denied the liability for the claim and pleaded limitation. Both the Courts below concurrently found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover compensation from the Railway on account of the loss of the five bags of shellac but held that the suit was barred by limitation with this difference that, according to the trial Judge, Article 30 of the Limitation Act applied to the facts of the case, whereas, the learned Judge of the Court of appeal below has held that Article 31 of the Limitation Act governed the case.

4. The only point that falls for determination is whether the suit is barred by limitation, and this involves the question whether Article 30 or Article 31 of the Limitation Act applies. Having regard to the facts of this case, there is no doubt--and it is not seriously disputed in this Court--that Article 31 of the Limitation Act governs the suit. Article 30 provides a period of one year for a suit against a carrier for compensation for losing or injuring goods, the period of limitation to run from the date when the loss or injury occurs. Strictly speaking, the instant suit was not one for compensation for loss of, or injury to goods. Article 31, on the other hand, provides for a suit against a carrier for compensation for non-delivery of or delay in delivering goods, and the period of Limitation is one year to be computed from the date on which the goods ought to be delivered This article is more appropriate in the instant case. It does not, however, prescribe any firm date from which the period of Limitation has to be computed. The question is: What is the meaning of the expression "when the goods ought to be delivered"? If there is any date fixed by contract for the delivery of the goods then undoubtedly it is that date which must be taken to be the date from which the period of one year prescribed by Article 31 is to be computed. The difficulty arises where no such date is fixed. In cases where no date was fixed, then, according to the general rule of interpretation, the time for the delivery of goods must be taken to be a reasonable time. In this connection a distinction has to be made between "reasonable time" and "ordinary time" for delivery of goods. "ordinary tune indicates normal time which must be the time within which the good? are ordinarily delivered. It is not the ordinary time which is envisaged by this Article. It con templates a reasonable time within which the goods ought to be delivered. , What is reasonable time must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No