9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (11) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nelveli, 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 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 othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only from the date on which the consignee was informed of the injury to the goods. 5. The learned Advocates for the respondents urged that in cases where the consignor takes open delivery of the goods after ascertaining the extent of damage to the same, the period of limitation will commence to run only from the date of such open delivery. In AIR1962Mad349 , the consignee took open delivery of the goods on 21st September, 1950 and even if that date was taken as the starting point for limitation, 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 limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation Act for compensation for injury to property, the period of limitation commences from the date when the property is injured. The period of limitation could not be put to a later date when the extent of the injury is ascertained, or the quantum of actual damages is assessed. If the Legislature intended to fix the date of the assessment of the actual damages as the starting point of limitation, it would have specifically expressed it in unambiguous terms. We have already referred to the decision in [1963]1SCR70 where it has been pointed out that 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 taking legal proceedings. 7. We shall first deal with the claim of the plaintiff in O. S. No. 5 of 1959 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirunelveli. Exhibits A-14 to A-17 show that the assessment of damages to the plaintiffs goods was made on 13th November, 1957. Even if this is taken as the starting point of limitation, and two months' time required to be given to the defendant in giving notice under Section 80, Civil Procedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f he had no prior knowledge of the injury to his goods, he 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 shortages marked as Exhibit A-64 can hardly be construed as an express or implied acknowledgment of liability to pay compensation or damages to the plaintiff. The certificate Exhibit A-64 is only with regard to the assessment of damages to the plaintiffs goods and it has nothing to do with the liability of the Southern Railway to the Plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff in O. S. No. 56 of 1960, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
