The period of limitation for a suit against a carrier for compensation for losing or injuring goods is one year from the date of the loss or injury. The time from which the period begins to run is when the loss or injury occurs.

SADASIVAM, J. :- The Union of India owning the Southern Railway, represented by the General Manager, Madras, has preferred these appeals against the common judgment in O. S. Nos. 5 of 1959 and 56 of 1960, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirunelveli, decreeing the claim for damages made by the plaintiff (in each of the suits). It is an undisputed fact that the respondent in each of the appeals consigned beedi parcels with the appellant-railway on 17th September, 1957 for being transported to Colombo and that the goods were drenched by water and damaged on 17th September, 1957, the very day on which they were loaded on the ship "S. S. Irwin" belonging to the appellant-railway. The learned Subordinate Judge Tirunelveli, negatived the pleas put forward by the appellant and decreed the suits for damages.

2. Sri S. K. L. Ratan appearing for the appellant in these appeals argued the appeals mainly on the question of limitation and also to some extent on the question whether there was negligence and misconduct on the part of the railway to make them liable for damages.

3. On the merits of the case, we see no sufficient ground to differ from the finding of the trial Court. The goods of the respondents were loaded in No. 3 hatch in the ship and the loading was completed at 12-10 P. M. on 17th September, 1957 and the hatch was battened down. When the hatch was again opened to load other goods at about 2-45 P. M., it was found that the hold was flooded with sea water. The evidence of D. W. 8, Rama Rao, Marine Superintendent, Southern Railways, and the report Exhibit B-2 made by him show that there was no leak in ship and that in his opinion it appeared to be a case of planned sabotage. The ship was guarded by the employees of the appellant-railway and so the only reasonable inference is that the damage should have been caused either by the wilful acts of the appellant's employees, or by others on account of the negligence of the appellant's employees. We agree with the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge that the damage to the goods of the plaintiff in each of the suits was due to the misconduct on the part of the servants of the railway.

4. There is no dispute about the fact that Article 80 of the Limitation Act of 1908 applies to the facts of this case and it provides one year period of limitation for a suit against a carrier for compensation for losing or injuring goods and the time from which the period begins to run is "when the loss or injury occurs". In Union of India v. Amar Singh, (1960) SCJ 543 : (1960) 2 SCR 75 : (AIR 1960 SC 233 at p. 238) it has been held that the burden is upon the defendant-railway who seeks to non-suit the plaintiff on the ground of limitation to establish that the loss occurred beyond one year from the date of the suit and that the proposition is self-evident and no citation is called for. In construing Articles 30 and 31 of the Limitation Act, the Supreme Court has observed in Bootamal v. Union of India, (1963) 1 SCR 70 : (AIR 1962 SC 1716), that ordinarily the words of a statute have to be given their strict grammatical meaning and equitable considerations are out of place, particularly in provisions of law limiting the period of limitation for filing suits or legal proceedings. Article 30 of the Limitation Act, as already pointed out, mentions that the time begins to run from the date when the loss or injury occurs. The actual loss or injury to the goods may occur on one date and the carrier may come to know of it only on a later date and the interval between the two dates may be more than one year. It would not be reasonable to construe the time from which the limitation commences to run under Article 30 of the Limitation Act of 1908 as the actual date of the loss or injury, and it is on account of this fact, the Courts rely on the date on which the carrier of the goods after coming to know of the loss or injury to the goods conveys the information to the consignor as the sta