A damage certificate issued by a railway goods supervisor assessing damage to goods in transit does not amount to an acknowledgment of liability extending the limitation period unless it admits both the fact of damage and the negligence or misconduct of the railway officers causing the damage.

( 1 ) THE facts involved in this Rule are practically admitted and upon those facts the only issue of law which arises is the issue of limitation upon which the two Courts below have taken two divergent views.

( 2 ) THE petitioner firm was the holder and endorsee of an invoice and railway receipt in respect of 89 bales of jute dispatched from Forbes Ganj to Cossipore Road on the then East Indian Railway. The entire consignment was delivered on 13-9-1951 when it "was found that 26 bales of Jute had arrived in a wet condition. A damage certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Goods Supervisor of Coosipore Road on 27-10-1951 assessing damage at 20 per cent of the value of the damaged bales each of which weighed 3 1/2 mds. The petitioner firm wrote several letters to the railway administration for payment of damages calculated at Rs. 1,001/- but the claim was repudiated on 14-1-1952. So the petitioner firm instituted this suit on 2-1-1953 for recovery of the above amount.

( 3 ) THE only defence of substance raised by the Union of India as representing the railway was that the suit was barred by limitation inasmuch the suit was not instituted within one year from the date of delivery of the goods which was 13-9-1951. The trial Judge held that limitation would run from that date, but the damage certificate amounted to an acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of 8. 19, Limitation Act, and had saved limitation. The Full Bench which heard the matter under Section 38, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, took a different view of the effect and implication of the damage certificate holding that it did not amount to an acknowledgment of liability and in that view of the matter dismissed the suit. The petitioner has come up to this Court in revision challenging the legality and propriety of the order- of the Full Bench.

( 4 ) THE only question mooted by the parties in this Rule was whether the damage certificate in question amounted to an acknowledgment of liability on the part of the railway and as such, whether it served to extend the period of limitation. There is no doubt that limitation in this case would be governed in the first place by Article 30 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act which provides a period of one year as the period of limitation against a carrier for compensation for losing or injuring goods from the time when the loss or injury occurs. In this particular case delivery of the entire consignment of jute including the damaged bales was taken on 13-9-1951 and so prima facie limitation would run from that date. The suit having been instituted on 2nd January, 1953, that is, more than one year after the "date of delivery of the goods is, on the face of it, barred by limitation.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the petitioner firm it was contended by Mr. Bhattacharjee that limitation was saved or rather extended by the issue of a damage certificate on 27-10-1951 which amounted to an acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of Section 19, Limitation Act and which gave a fresh lease of limitation to the petitioner for the institution of the suit. The damage certificate runs in the following terms: 1469/51 dated 20-9-51 without prejudice. E. I. Ely. Certificate of damage and shortages. Date 27-10-51. Consignment of 89b/s Jute weighing 311/20. Bonked from Porbesganj to Coosipore Road, Invoice Or R/r No. 393/os4089. 5-9-1951. Send or Murlindhar Om prokash. Consignee self endorsed to Bal Chand Badri Prosad. R/rxxxxxxxxxx Condition of packages at time of survey 26 B/s. Jute delivered on 13/9 in wet condition due to heavy rain assessed @ 20 per cent, vide Sc P. A. 's letter No. C. 12 dated 14-9-51. Weight of goods -- 31/2 mds. each I agree to the above without prejudice. Gaji. Goods Supervisor. Consignee for B. Chand B Pd. Cossipur Rd E. I. Rly 30. X. 51 28/x

( 6 ) MR. Basu appearing on behalf of the opposite party contended, on the other hand, that the damage certificate contains only an