A suit for compensation under S. 70 of the Contract Act is governed by Art. 113 of the Limitation Act, and the cause of action accrues when the defendant refuses to pay for the benefit received.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff and it is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge dismissing his suit against the State and other defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15000/- (fifteen thousand only) and interest in respect of the price of a diesel motor truck. It is no longer disputed that on 14th Oct, 1968 the plaintiff had delivered to the then Principal, Industrial Training Institute of the State Government situated at Malda the aforesaid diesel truck No. WGR 553 for the purpose of use of the same for imparting training at the Institute. The price was fixed at Rs. 15000/- (fifteen thousand only ). It is also undisputed that no valid contract in accordance with Art. 299 of the Constitution was made by and between the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendant-State on the other. Therefore the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to sue the defendant-State and other on the basis of any contractual obligation to pay the price of the said truck. We may record that at the trial of the suit defendant's witnesses did not deny that the said truck was lying in the Motor Mechanism Section of the Institute and that the price for the same was not paid to the plaintiff in spite of repeated demands.

( 2 ) LEARNED Sub-ordinate Judge, in our view, has rightly held that the defendants were liable to pay the compensation for the said truck to the plaintiff because the plaintiff never intended to deliver the same gratuitously and as such obligation on the part of the defendants to make restitution arose because the Industrial Training Institute had enjoyed the benefit of the truck and had used the same for the purpose of imparting training to the trainees of the Institute. We accordingly uphold the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the provision of S. 70 of the Contract Act will be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. We are however unable to agree with the learned Sub-ordinate Judge that the instant suit was governed by Art. 14 of the Lim. Act 1963 and therefore the same was barred by limitation.

( 3 ) MR. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the appellant has rightly submitted that the suit in question was not for the price of a moveable property sold by the plaintiff to the defendant but was one for compensation on account of unjust enrichment of the defendants as contemplated under S. 70 of the Contract Act. There is preponderence of judicial decisions that suits for compensation claimed under S. 70 of the Contract Act are governed by the residuary Art. 120 of Lim. Act, 1908 corresponding to present Art. 113 of the Lim. Act, 1963 vide 25 Cal WN 813 Upendra Krishna Mondal v. Naba Krishna Mondal, AIR 1971 Cal 150 (Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Union of India) and AIR 1974 Cal 231 (Union of India v. Kamal Kumar Goswami ).

( 4 ) LEARNED Sub-ordinate Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation because according to him the cause of action in the instant suit had accrued on the date of delivery of the truck to the Principal of the Institute on 14th Oct, 1968 whereas the plaintiff filed the instant suit on 22nd Mar. , 1972. Mr. Ghosh appearing for the plaintiff has rightly submitted that the plaintiff's cause of action for claiming compensation did not synchronize with the date of delivery of the truck to the Principal of the Institute on 14th Oct, 1968 but the plaintiff's right to sue accrued when the defendants refused to pay the price and/or compensation for the truck retained by them. The receipt (Ex. 4) granted for the delivery of the truck itself stipulated that the payment would be made after obtaining the approval of the Additional Director of Industries, Calcutta-1. The plaintiff wrote a series of letters vide Exts-7 and 7a demanding payment. The defendants did not send any reply and did not ever repudiate their liability to compensate the plaintiff by them. The present Principal of the Institute who had assumed charge a