Time begins to run against the plaintiff for the purpose of Art. 30 of the Limitation Act from the date on which the consignee becomes aware of the damage.

KUNHAMED KUTTI, J. :- The only point that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The facts can be briefly stated.

2. On 24-7-1956 a consignment of beedi tobacco consisting of 55 bags was despatched from Karamsad in the State of Maharashtra to Tirunelveli junction. The goods had to pass through the Western Railway, Central railway and Southern railway and actually reached Tirunelveli Junction on 27-8-1956, which normally is a much longer time than usually required. The plaintiff who is the consignee of the goods found them wet on arrival and, therefore, did not take delivery. On 1-9-1956, the plaintiff wrote to the Chief Commercial Superintendent of the Southern railway as per Ex. A. 13 that the above consignment reached Tirunelveli junction after a pretty long time and that almost all the bags were found damaged due to rains as the bags had been loaded in an old wagon exposed to sun and rain in transit. By this letter the plaintiff also informed the Chief Commercial Superintendent that, since the bags were damaged, the plaintiff was not in a position to take delivery as the tobacco had completely lost its colour, flavour, taste, strength etc. and was unfit for human consumption. As there was no reply to this letter, the plaintiff again wrote on 11-9-1956 as per Ex. A. 14, setting out the price including the excise duty of the 55 bags of tobacco and requesting the Chief Commercial Superintendent to settle the claim. In reply to the latter letter, the Chief Commercial Superintendent wrote to the plaintiff on 18-9-1956, as per Ex. A.3, asking him to take delivery of the consignment on reasonable assessment of the damage and informing him further that if such delivery was not taken within 3 days from the receipt of the letter, the goods would be disposed of at the plaintiffs risk and responsibility holding him liable for wharfage etc. in accordance with Ss. 55 and 56 of the Railways Act. The plaintiff was also informed in this letter that necessary instructions had been issued to the Claims Inspector. Tirunelveli, in the matter of assessment.

3. It would appear that on 9-10-1956 the goods were examined by the Central Excise and Railway Officials (A. T. S. and Commercial Inspector of the railway and Deputy Superintendent and Range Officer of the Central Excise). But as the Commercial Inspector wanted all the damaged bags to be emptied and the tobacco processed, actual delivery was not given to the plaintiff who, then wrote as per Ex. B.4 on 10-10-1956, that processing wanted by the railway authorities was prohibited under Rule 47 of the Central Excise Act, and that, since the bags were drenched completely in water, the question of processing or curing did not arise. In Ex. B.4, therefore, while again requesting the Chief Commercial Superintendent to settle his claim, the plaintiff also asked for a copy of the report forwarded by the Central Excise authorities. A reply to this letter was sent by the Chief Commercial Superintendent on 19-10-1956. He stated that the matter was under correspondence with the Central Excise authorities and further communication would follow. No communication appears to have been subsequently sent; so that on 25-10-1956, the plaintiff again wrote to the Chief Commercial Superintendent as per Ex. B.7 for settlement of his claim within a week and informed him that if the claim was not settled he would be forced to take legal action against the railway. This was followed by other letters. In their reply, Ex A.10, the railway informed the plaintiff that the beedi tobacco in question was not packed in baskets or mats as required by the prescribed packing condition, P 10 applicable to the consignment in question, that the alleged damage was directly attributable to non-compliance of the said packing condition, and that, further, the consignment was booked at the 9th class rate at owners risk the conditions of which absolved the railway from all liability for