The service of notice under Section 77, Railways Act upon the Chief Commercial Manager is a substantial compliance with the requirements of law, and the starting point of limitation under Article 30 of the Limitation Act for a suit against a carrier for compensation for losing or injuring goods is the date of delivery of the goods to the plaintiffs.

( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against a decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan in Small Cause Court Suit No. 134 of 1951 allowing in part the plaintiffs' claim for compensation against the defendant Railway. The claim arose out of damages alleged to have been caused to a part of a consignment of Biri tobacco booked at Station Vadtal for carriage and delivery to the plaintiffs at Burdwan. The booking was under Risk Notes A and B and the usual defences were taken by the petitioner Railway denying misconduct, claiming protection under the Risk Notes and alleging non-service of the statutory notices. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs' claim was excessive and was also barred by limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge overruled the defence contentions and decreed the plaintiffs' suit. He, however, disallowed the plaintiffs' claim for interest. Against the decree passed as aforesaid, the defendant Railway obtained the present Rule.

( 2 ) IN support of the Rule, Mr. Bhabesh Narayan Basu urged three points. He challenged the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge on the question of misconduct, contended also that there was no proper service of notice under Section 77, Railways Act and finally that the plaintiffs' suit was time-barred.

( 3 ) UPON the first point, Mr. Basu drew our attention particularly to the decision of this Court in the case of -- 'ralliaram Dingra v. Governor-General of India in Council', AIR 1946 Cal 249 (A), and submitted that in the light of the observations contained in that judgment the learned Subordinate Judge's finding against the petitioner on the question of misconduct could not be sustained. On the above basis Mr. Basu claimed full protection for this client against the plaintiffs' claim, made in the suit, under the Risk Notes, referred to above.

( 4 ) IT was next argued by Mr. Basu that therewas, in the present case, no proper service of noticeunder Section 77, Railways Act. It was not and, indeed,it could not be denied that a notice under that section had been sent to the railway in time but the contention put forward by Mr. Basu was to theeffect that as it was sent to the Chief Commercial Manager and not to the General Manager, the service was not a proper service in law. For this proposition strong reliance was placed on the recent decision of this Court in -- 'union of India v. Indumati Saha'.

( 5 ) THE petitioner's third contention was that, in any event, the plaintiffs' claim was barred by limitation, the suit having been instituted on 5-11-1951 although delivery was taken by the plaintiffs opposite parties on 1-9-1950. On this plea of limitation. Mr. Basu's argument was that the Article of the Limitation Act applicable to the present case being admittedly Article 30 which allowed a period of one year from the date "when the loss or injury" occurred, that is, one year from the date of delivery to the plaintiffs at the latest, from the date for the institution of the suit, the time for such institution in the present ease expired, in the first instance, on 1-9-1951 at the latest, and the plaintiffs being entitled to a deduction or extension of two months under Section 15 (2), Limitation Act on account of the statutory notice of suit which had to be given and was given under Section 80, Civil P. C. , the very last date of filing the suit was 1-11-1951, but, the suit having been filed admittedly on 5-11-1951, it was clearly time barred.

( 6 ) THE points, raised by Mr. Basu, are mainly of a technical character and, although we would not say that all of them are wholly without sub-| stance, so far at least as technicalities are concerned, we are not inclined to interfere in this Rule of technical grounds, even if they were in the petitioner's favour, as the plaintiffs' claim, to the extent that it has been allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge, appears to be quite a just claim on the merits and as, accordingly, by the decision, complained agains