Limitation for carrier damage claims runs from the injury itself; vague correspondence does not amount to acknowledgment of liability.

Article 30 of the Limitation Act, 1908 prescribes a one-year period for suits against carriers for loss or injury to goods, and time runs from when the injury occurs, not from later knowledge of the full extent of damage. The note also explains that a carrier resisting the claim on limitation must show that the loss or injury occurred more than one year before suit. It further states that correspondence will save limitation only if it clearly acknowledges liability; mere reference to investigation, a request not to sue immediately, or a damage-assessment certificate is insufficient. On the facts discussed, the suits were treated as time-barred and the correspondence as ineffective to extend limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) when limitation begins to run in a suit against a carrier for damage to goods under Article 30 of the Limitation Act, 1908; (ii) whether the correspondence relied upon amounted to an acknowledgment of liability so as to save limitation.

Issue (i): when limitation begins to run in a suit against a carrier for damage to goods under Article 30 of the Limitation Act, 1908

Analysis: Article 30 prescribes a one-year period for suits against a carrier for compensation for loss or injury to goods, and time begins when the loss or injury occurs. The governing rule is that the statute must receive its plain and strict meaning, and the burden lies on the carrier seeking to defeat the suit on limitation to show that the loss or injury occurred more than one year before suit. The point of commencement is not postponed until the consignee learns the full extent of damage, but depends on when the plaintiff became aware of the injury on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The suits were barred by limitation because, on the facts, limitation had begun to run more than one year before institution.

Issue (ii): whether the correspondence relied upon amounted to an acknowledgment of liability so as to save limitation

Analysis: The letters relied upon did not contain any express admission of liability. Mere intimation that the claim was under investigation, or a request that the plaintiff should not rush to court, did not amount to an implied acknowledgment of liability. Likewise, a certificate relating only to assessment of damage and shortage did not acknowledge liability to pay compensation.

Conclusion: The correspondence did not amount to an acknowledgment of liability and limitation was not saved.

Final Conclusion: The decrees in both suits were set aside and the suits were dismissed as barred by limitation, with the parties left to bear their own costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit against a carrier for compensation for loss or injury to goods, limitation under Article 30 begins when the injury occurs and is not extended by later assessment of damage or by correspondence that does not clearly acknowledge liability.

---