Judgment Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. The appellant filed a suit for a money decree for Rs.15772/- along with pendent elite and future interest on the allegations that a consignment containing 1260 bags of urea was despatched by M/s Sindri Fertiliser and Chemical to the Depot Manager, Co-operative Credit Agricole Depot, Motipur, on the north Eastern Railway as consignee. The consignment was booked at the Railway risk. The Depot Manager, Co-operative Credit Agricole Depot, Motipur, presented the Railway receipt at the Railway station on 17.6.1961 (it should be 17.5.1961), but out of the total bags of 1260, 837 bags only were delivered and a short certificate for the remaining bags of urea was granted. A claim under section 77 of the Railways Act, was lodged with the Railway authorities on 9.8.1961. On 27.2.1962, the Station Master Motipur, informed the Depot Manager that the missing bags had been received and asked him to take delivery and not to file the suit. When the Depot Manager went to the station, he found that the bags contained Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate and not urea and hence he refused to take delivery of the bags. A lawyer's notice dated 5.5.1962 was given claiming Rs.15422/- as price of 423 bags of urea. A notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also given on 28.11.1962. As the demand was not met, the suit was filed. In schedule A to the plaint, the price of urea is indicated at Rs.15422/-. A sum of Rs.350/- has been claimed as loss of profits. 2. The Union of India filed a written statement and stated therein that all the 1260 bags were loaded by the consignor in three wagons out of which 837 bags were duly delivered, as stated in the plaint, but one wagon bearing no. BG Wg. 67629 with 420 bags was by mistake despatched to Dhanbad station on the Eastern Railway and after discovery of the mistake, the wagon was sent and was lying at the destination station to the knowledge of the plaintiff and the plaintiff wrongly refused to take delivery of the contents on the pretext that the contents had been changed. Regarding the shortage of three more bags, it bas been stated that, that has been due to the fact that the sender had not loaded the full quantity as mentioned in the Railway receipt. Regarding the shortage of three more bags, it bas been stated that, that has been due to the fact that the sender had not loaded the full quantity as mentioned in the Railway receipt. It has been further pleaded that the cause of action arose on 17.6.1961 and the suit was governed by Article 31 of the Limitation Act, and was, therefore, barred as it was filed on 21.2.1963. 3. The trial court held that actually the urea bad been despatched in all the bags and the Railways were offering Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate and, as such, the plaintiff was entitled to refuse to take the bags, and the Railways are liable for the loss of 423 bags of urea. On the question of limitation, the court agreed with the defence plea and held that the suit was barred by time. The suit was accordingly dismissed. 4. On the amount of claim, the Court below held, that the plaintiff would not be emitled, in case of success, to the sum of Rs.350/- claimed on account of loss of profits. The court has indicated that even if it were to decree the suit, it would refuse the claim interest. The plaintiff has accordingly preferred this appeal. 5. Although in the memorandum of appeal, the decision of the court disallowing the plaintiff's claim for loss of profit has been challenged, in the argument addressed before us, Mr. Ghose had lot pressed the point. The court's observation that even in case of success the claim of interest should not be allowed has also not been challenged. Learned counsel has, however, seriously contended that the suit in the present case should not be held to be barred by limitation and the Judgment of the court below on this point is erroneous. Mr. Bose appearing for the Union of India, has urged that the decision of the court below on the issue of limitation is correct. He has also submitted that it should be held that in 420 bags offered for delivery later on, the material despatched was Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate and not urea, and the plaintiff had no right to refuse delivery thereof. 6. The Railway receipt has been marked as Ext. A in this case and it shows that in each of the three wagons, 420 bags of urea had been loaded. The missing goods report (Ext. 6. The Railway receipt has been marked as Ext. A in this case and it shows that in each of the three wagons, 420 bags of urea had been loaded. The missing goods report (Ext. B) also mentions urea in fourth column meant for indicating the nature of consignment. At the end of Ext. B a table has been given mentioning number of wagon, number of articles and description of goods and here also urea is mentioned. The forwarding note (Ext. E) also mentions urea. The plaintiff examined the Manager, Co-operative Credit Agricole Depot as P.W. 1 who stated that instead of urea, Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate had been offered by the Railways and as urea is more costly, the goods offered could not be accepted. In cross-examination, he stated that he knew the difference between urea and Nitrate, and the colour of urea is white while Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate is slightly yellow. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, and Exts. 1, 1(A), 2, 2(A), 2(B), 3 and 4 go to prove that all the 1260 bags initially contained urea. The evidence also fully establishes that what was offered by the Railway Department was Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate and not urea. Mr. Bose suggested that it was the consignor who had loaded bags in the wagons and their men must have in the missing wagon loaded Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate in the 420 bags and not urea. This suggestion is not supported by any evidence on the record and cannot, therefore, be accepted. There are numerous admissions on the part of the Railway authorities that the undelivered bags also contained urea. This point is, therefore, decided in favour of the plaintiff. 7. The main question which has been argued with great vehemence on both sides is that of limitation. Admittedly, 837 bags of urea were duly delivered and on the 28th August, 1961, the Railway asked the plaintiff to send the original Bijak as 423 bags were traceless. The missing goods report was made on 27th September, 1961 and is Ext. B, referred to above, Krishna Gopal Sarkar, the only witness examined on behalf of the defendants, stated that the missing wagon had been misdirected. The entries in the wagon register Ext. The missing goods report was made on 27th September, 1961 and is Ext. B, referred to above, Krishna Gopal Sarkar, the only witness examined on behalf of the defendants, stated that the missing wagon had been misdirected. The entries in the wagon register Ext. C, C (1) and D indicate that the plea in paragraph 6 of the written statement that the third wagon had been by mistake despatched to another Railway station is correct. After the mistake was detected and the wagon was located, the goods were sent to Motipur. The bags undoubtedly contained Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate when they reached Motipur. On 27.2.1962, the Railway gave an open delivery of the remaining goods to the plaintiff at the Motipur Station, but as the goods were found Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate, the plaintiff refused to receive them. On 26.3.62 the plaintiff by letter Ext. 7 (C) and 7 (G) pointed out that what had been offered was not urea ready to take Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate unless the Railways were ready to compensate the difference in the price. On the 27th March, 1962, the Station Master, Motipur, wrote to the plaintiff that the matter had been referred to the authority concerned and on receipt of the reply from him, it will be intimated to the plaintiff. After waiting for some months, the notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was given and the suit was thereafter filed on 21.4.1963. 8. Mr. Ghose, appearing for the appellant contended that this is clearly a case governed by Article 30 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and the period of one year must be deemed to run when the loss occurred. In the present case, it is not known as to when the Urea was actually substituted by Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate in the bags and, therefore the period of limitation would start running from 27.2.1962 when the Railway gave open delivery and the fact about substitution of the goods was discovered. Reliance was placed on the decision Jetmall Bhojraj Vs. Darjeeling Himalayan Railway Co. Ltd. In that case, 259 bales of cloth had been despatched from Bombay to be carried to Giellekhola station on the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway .On the 7th June 1946, 159 bales were delivered to the appellant, 90 bales were missing and they were sometimes in September, 1946 at another station. Darjeeling Himalayan Railway Co. Ltd. In that case, 259 bales of cloth had been despatched from Bombay to be carried to Giellekhola station on the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway .On the 7th June 1946, 159 bales were delivered to the appellant, 90 bales were missing and they were sometimes in September, 1946 at another station. They were ultimately brought to Giellekhola and on the 21st December, 1946, the appellant asked for open delivery. On the 12th April, 1947, open delivery was given to the appellant. It was discovered that the goods had been severely damaged. After service of notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, a suit for damages was filed on the 9th April, 1948. The suit was clearly governed by Article 30 of the Limitation Act, but a dispute arose regarding the date from which the period was to be calculated. The third column of Article 30 reads that: "When the loss or injury occurs." The Supreme Court observed that when the goods are consigned by a consignor, he would not be in a pasition to know the precise date on which the loss or injury had occurred. The burden would be on the Railway Administration who wanted to non-suit the plaintiff on ground of limitation to establish that loss or injury occurred more than one year before the institution of the suit. It was held in the circumstances that the suit was not barred by limitation. Applying the same principle, Mr. Ghose contended that the period of one year in the case before us should be reckoned from 27.2.1962 when it was discovered that the bags did not contain urea. Mr. Ghose appears to be right Mr. P.K. Bose, appearing for the Railway Administration, in reply to this argument contended that the present suit is not governed by Article 30 at all and the appropriate provision is in Article 31. 9. Article 30 and 31 are in the following terms: 30. Against a carrier for compensation One year. When the loss or for losing or injuring goods. injury occurs. 31. Against a carrier for compensation One year. When the goods for non-delivery of, or delay in ought to be delivered. delivering, goods. 10. The main question, therefore, on which the result of this litigation depends is whether that suit is governed by Article 30 or Article 31 Mr. When the loss or for losing or injuring goods. injury occurs. 31. Against a carrier for compensation One year. When the goods for non-delivery of, or delay in ought to be delivered. delivering, goods. 10. The main question, therefore, on which the result of this litigation depends is whether that suit is governed by Article 30 or Article 31 Mr. Bose argued that this is accuse of non-delivery of 423 bags and, therefore, the appropriate article is Article 31. The period of one year has to be calculated from the date when the goods are to be delivered. In the present case, the bulk of the goods had been delivered on 17.6.1961 and, therefore, following the decision in Boota Mal Vs. Union of India it must be held that the remaing bags also ought to have been delivered on that date. Calculating the period from this date, the suit is admittedly barred. On behalf of the plaintiff, it is said that the present case is not a case of non-delivery; it is a case where the goods have been lost, and, as such, Article 30 would apply. The main argument of Mr. Bose is that the very plaint the plaintiff has attempted to make out a case of non-delivery and for that reason, the matter is concluded against the plaintiff. Reliance was placed on the decisions Puran Das V. East India Railway Co. and Dominion of Indio V. Hazari Lal. In Dominion of India V. Hazari Lal, the plaintiff's case in the plaint was that the goods had been lost owing to the negligence on the part of the servants of the defendant Railway company. It was held that the case must be treated as one for loss even though the plaintiff framed the suit as for non-delivery. In the case of Puran Das V. East Indian Railway Co., the plaintiff alleged in the plaint that on account of non-delivery, he had suffered a loss, but in the earlier portions of the plaint, allegations were made that he had come to know that the goods had been lost owing to the negligence on the part of the Railway servants. No issue had been framed as to whether the goods had been lost or not. The majority view held that in these circumstances it should be held that there was an admission about a loss of the goods. No issue had been framed as to whether the goods had been lost or not. The majority view held that in these circumstances it should be held that there was an admission about a loss of the goods. Learned Counsel in appeal before us urged that it is not necessary for this Court to examine the evidence and circumstances for deciding whether it is a case of loss of goods or of non-delivery on an interpretation of the plaint itself, it should be held that the plaintiff has attempted to make out a case of non-delivery and on that basis Article 31 should be applied. Great emphasis has been laid on the language of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the plaint, which are in the following terms: "5) That the plaintiff's aforesaid Depot Manager went to the station Motipur to take delivery of the missing bags of Urea but at the time of taking delivery of the said missing bags, it was found that the bags contained Ammonium Sulphate Nitrate and not Urea and hence the plaintiff's Depot Manager refused to take delivery of the missing bags of Urea. That the loss occurred to the plaintiff is the direct result of the negligence on the part of the Railway Authorities and hence they are liable to compensate. (6) That the plaintiff, thereafter, served the defendants with a lawyer's notice dated 5.6.1962 directing the Railway authorities concerned to pay to the plaintiff the aforesaid sum of Rs.15422/- being the price of 423 bags of urea not delivered to the plaintiff, but the defendants have failed to pay and hence this suit. (7) That the plaintiff submits that the aforesaid loss arising out of non-delivery of 423 bags of urea was caused due to the negligence and utter carelessness on the part of the Railway Administration and the defendant is liable for the same." By use of the words "missing bags" the plaintiff has apparently referred to the bags which had been missing temporarily and which had been traced out and sent to Motipur. The substance of the allegations is that the bags were the same, but the contents had been substituted. According to the defence case also, the very bags which had been a part of the consignment were traced out and offered to the plaintiff. The substance of the allegations is that the bags were the same, but the contents had been substituted. According to the defence case also, the very bags which had been a part of the consignment were traced out and offered to the plaintiff. So far as the indentity of the bags is concerned, both sides agreed that those offered by the Railway Administration were the same which had been booked. The evidence is also to that effect. The difference between the parties is on the question whether the same goods which had been put in those bags were being offered by the Railway or there had been a substitution at some point of time. It is, therefore, not a case where the consignment or a part thereof was wholly undelivered. As the booked bags, which were a part of the consignment reached the destination, it must, to my mind, be held that it is a case of loss of urea which had been packed in those bags. The words "that the loss occurred to the plaintiff is the direct result of the negligence on the part of the Railway authorities and hence they are liable to compensate" (some words have been underlined by me) in paragraph 5, or the words "423 bags of urea not delivered (some words have been underlined by me) in paragraph 7 of the plaint are not decisive of the nature of the case which the plaintiff bas made out in this regard. The word 'loss' in paragraph 5 of the plaint refers to the loss to the plaintiff and does not therefore, determine that Article 30 is applicable nor the words "not delivered" and "non-delivery" in paragraphs 6 and 7 decide in favour of applying Article 31. Then non-delivery is referable to the urea and does not include the bags. The consignment must be held to have reached Motipur, but the goods were lost in transit and substituted by another stuff. On the case of the Railway as made out in the written statement and during the trial it is a clear case of loss. The Railways are still insisting that the bags booked under the consignment duty reached the destination, but after some delay. On the case of the Railway as made out in the written statement and during the trial it is a clear case of loss. The Railways are still insisting that the bags booked under the consignment duty reached the destination, but after some delay. I therefore, hold that this is a case for compensation for the loss of Goods covered by Article 30, and, as was pointed out in the Supreme Court case in Jetmull Bhojraj (supra) the period of one year should be reckoned from 27.2.1962 when the loss was discovered at the time of open delivery. The other cases, Union of India V. Gauri Shankar Badri Narain, Union of India Vs. Jogendra Chandra Naha and Union of India Vs. Amar Singh; cited at the bar on behalf of both sides are not similar to the present case and are not applicable. 11. For the reasons stated above, I hold that the suit is not barred by limitation and the view taken by the trial court is not correct. On the merits, the plaintiff has established its claim for a decree for Rs.15422/-. The claim for interest has neither been raised in the memorandum of appeal nor in the arguments. I, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the court below and decree the suit for a sum of Rs.15422/- the plaintiff win be entitled to proportionate costs of both the courts. Appeal allowed.