Meaning of expression "Carrier".

This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant against the Governor-General in Council by Agent and General Manager of the South Indian Railway at Trichinopoly for recovery of Rs. 1,080.

A consignment of 103 bundles of tobacco dust was sent to the plaintiff-appellant to the Tiruppur Railway station from Shedbal station on the M. &38; S. M. Railway as per invoice, dated 10th August, 1944. The goods were received at the Tiruppur Railway station on the 18th August, 1944 and on unloading the plaintiff found that some of the bundles were completely wet and the packing of other bundles torn and loose He wrote to the Commercial Superintendent on 20th August, 1944, Exhibit A-2, complaining about the damage and claiming a sum of Rs. 3,000. The Claims Inspector examined the damaged goods and issued a certificate under date 9th September, 1944, assessing the value of the damage at 75 per cent. of Rs. 1,060. Damages were claimed on its basis by Exhibit A-3, dated 9th January, 1945. The railway administration repudiated the claim by their reply, dated 22nd January, 1945 (Exhibit A-4). The plaintiff caused an advocate’s notice to be sent (Exhibit A-5) on 6th February, 1945, to which under Exhibit A-6, dated 16th February, 1945, the railway administration informed the plaintiff’s advocate that the matter was under enquiry and that they would send a definite reply shortly and if in the meanwhile the plaintiff chose to take the matter to Court, it would be at his risk. The final reply (Exhibit A-8) was sent by the Commercial Superintendent on 4th July, 1945, stating that they maintained the repudiation for reasons already stated in their letter, dated 22nd January, 1945 (Exhibit A-4). The suit was instituted on 4th July, 1946. A defence of limitation was taken that the suit was barred, as it was instituted beyond one year after the occurring of the loss or injury. Applying Article 30 of the Indian Limitation Act, both the Courts upheld the plea of limitation and dismissed the suit. Article 30 of the Limitation Act provides the period of limitation for suits against a carrier for compensation for loss or injury to goods and the period is one year from the time the loss or injury occurs. Article 31 prescribes the period of limitation in respect of a suit against a carrier for compensation for non-delivery of or delay in delivering goods, and the period is one year to he computed from the time when the goods ought to be delivered.

The contention on behalf of the appllant is that the defendant in this case, who was the Governor-General in Council could not come within the meaning of "carrier". In the Wharton’s "Law Lexicon" the meaning of ‘carrier’ is given as a person who undertakes to transport the goods of other persons from one place to another fore hire. It is contended that the Government of India is not a person or an incorporated company or an individual or a sole corporation and that, prior to the Government of India Act of 1935, the Secretary of State for India in Council was a body corporate and after the Act the Secretary of State for India in Council ceased to function and all the properties of the Secretary of State for India vested in the Government of India, which was not a Corporation.

Reliance is placed on the decision in Golab Rai Paliram v. Secretary of State for India in Council1, where, relying on the definition of "common carrier" in section 2 of the Carriers Act (III of 1865), Lort-Williams, J., held that the Government though engaged in the business of transporting property for hire, could not come within the term ‘carrier’, that Article 30 would have no application and the appropriate article would be Article 115 of the Limitation Act. The learned Judge refers to the definition of ‘common carrier’ in Macnamara on "Carrier by Landi"‘ II edition at page 11, which is as follows:-

"A common carrier is a person who undertakes for hire to transport from a place within the realm to a place within or without th