TMI Blog1968 (11) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 table ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en 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]1SCR70 , 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 dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the suit was barred by limitation and it was in that context it was observed that limitation would, in any event start running from 21st September, 1950. We have already referred to the decision in that case that time will start to run only from the date on which the consignee became aware of the injury to the goods. In Sultan Pillai and Sons v. Union of India AIR1963Mad365 , it has been held that in a suit for damage to goods against a carrier, the proper Article of the Limitation Act applicable is Article 30 and time will run from the date on which the consignee becomes aware of the damage and that the date of repudiation of the claim by the carrier cannot be the starting point of limitation in such cases. It is clear from the facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch the loss or injury has occurred and that the burden would be on the railway administration who want to nonsuit the plaintiff on the ground of limitation to establish that the loss or injury occurred more than one year before the institution of the suit. We have already referred to the decision in AIR1962Mad349 , where it has been held that the time will start to run from the date on which the consignee became aware of the injury to the goods. The decision in East India Railway v. Gopilal Sarma AIR1941Cal304 , that the time does not run from the date of plaintiffs knowledge and that it begins to run from the date when the injury was actually caused and that the burden of proving when the injury was caused rests upon the carrier has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdinate Judge accepted the pica of the plaintiff that there was an acknowledgment of liability by the railway in Exhibit A-32, which is as follows:-- While acknowledging receipt of your notice referred to above on behalf of your clients Messrs. Seyadu Beedi Company, Sindu Poondurai, Tirunelveli, I have to state, that the Railway is having the matter thoroughly investigated and that the cause of damage by water is being enquired, and it is hoped your clients will be advised definitely on the finalisation of the claim shortly. If, however, in the meanwhile, your clients take the matter to Court, please note and notify them that they will be held liable for all costs the Railway incur in such a proceeding. Admittedly, there is no ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could certainly rely on the date or Exhibit A-64 as the starting point for limitation and the suit would be within time as found by the lower Court. But the Chief Commercial Superintendent has given intimation to the plaintiff in O. S. No. 58 of 1960, on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, of the injury to the goods even by his letter Exhibit A-63, dated 9th October, 1957, which the plaintiff had received on 13th October, 1957, as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the plaint. Hence the period of limitation would commence to run from 13th October, 1957, and the suit should have been filed on or before 13th December, 1968. But the suit was actually filed on 17th December, 1958, after a delay of four days. The certificate of damages and shortage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
