The starting point of limitation for a suit against a carrier for compensation for losing or injuring goods under Article 30 of the Indian Limitation Act is when the loss or injury occurs, and the burden of proof to establish the date of loss or injury lies on the defendant railway.

S. BARMAN, J.

( 1 ) THE defendant is the appellant. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff against the Railway Administration for Rs. 1756/- for loss of 45 maunds, 12 seers of sugar in the circumstances hereinafter stated. The defence pleaded limitation which both the courts below rejected and decreed the suit.

( 2 ) THE facts as relevant for deciding the point of limitation are these : on September 12, 1957 the plaintiff indented from Sasumusa near gorakhpur in North Bihar for delivery to the plaintiff at Cuttack 240 bags of sugar under R/r No 10835 Invoice No. 49 dated 12-9-1957 Con North eastern Railway) Ext. A showing the weight of the goods consigned as 667 mds. 20 seers. It is said that the first unloading in respect of the consignment was on September 25, 1957. The entries in the unloading register (i. e. Full Unloading Tally Book) dated September 30, 1957 Ext. C show that part of the consignment was lost. The plaintiffs case is that on October 7, 1957 at the time of delivery of the consignment out of 240 bags of sugar only 202 bags of sugar were delivered to the plaintiff in good condition and the remaining 38 bags of sugar were found torn and loose and the extent of damage/ shortage was stated to be 45 mds. 12 seers i. e. R. F. 60 mds. 6 srs. against one good bag sugar 2 mds. 31 seers (105 mds. 18 seers ). Open delivery was granted on protest and shortage certificate showing the extent of shortage as 45 mds. 12 seers was granted under the signature, of delivery Authority (Ext. B ). The plaintiff filed the suit on October 5, 1958. The defence is limitation-

( 3 ) THE relevant Article is Article 30 of the Indian Limitation Act. It reads as follows.-Description of Suit Period of limitation time from which Period begins to run. 30. Against a car-rier for cotn-peasation for losing or injuring goods. ONE YEAR When the loss or injury occurs. The defendant's point is that in this case; the starting point of limitation is september 30, 1957 when the actual shortage was found as recorded in the entries in the unloading register Ext. C, and, not on October 7, 1957 when the shortage certificate was granted. The plain-tiff's point is that the suit was tiled within time as the starting point of limitation was from the date of certificate of shortage, namely October 7, 1957.

( 4 ) THE question now is: When does the period of limitation under Article 30 begin to run against the defendant? The answer in Col. 3 of Article 30 is that time from which period begins to run is when the loss or injury occurs. The burden is upon the defendant, 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 suit. This proposition is self-evident.

( 5 ) THEN the question arises: Has the: defendant, on; whom the burden rests to prove that the loss occurred beyond the prescribed period, established the fact in this case? The suit was filed on December 5, 1958. The relevant entriands in the unloading register Ext. C dated September 30, 1957 are these : "dated 30-9-57. XX XX XX XX XX 38. Under Inv. Recd. 49 of 1219 R/f 60-S Sr. one good and wg. R/f mds. 2-31 srs. C/r. cot R/f NU w/6 stack CTC Witnessed. Sd. Illegible nk W/6 RPF CTC 30-9-53 cuttack" from these entries the actual shortage was proved on Sept. 30, 1957. The goods clerk D. W. 1 deposed that 129 bags were unloaded on September 30, 1957 under invoice No. 49. He proved the entry in the unloading register Ex. C. The witness further said that invoice No. 49, 38 bags were unloaded under cut and loose condition; the weight was 60 mds 6 seers; against one good bag 2 mds 31 srs. Thus the unloading register Ext. C read with the evidence of the goods clerk conclusively determines that the loss was proved on September 30, 1957. There is thus clear evidence which proved that by or before September 30, 1957 the goods were lost or injured with consequential shortage. Their Lordships of the Supreme C