Judgment :- Against the dismissal of the suit the plaintiffs have filed this appeal. The suit is against the Railways for recovery of compensation of Rs. 44,000/- for the damage caused to the goods delivered to the Railways for transport. 2. According to the plaintiff (1) The Graphite India Limited and (ii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Seimons India Limited, Bombay entrusted five consignments of transformers and earth cables to the railways to be transported from Wadibunder, Bombay to Krishnarajapuram as per Railway Receipts dated 29.12.71, 21.1.72, 25.1.72, 29.1.72 and 8.2.72. The consignments were intended for the first plaintiff. The said consignments reached Krishnarajapuram in or about March, 1972, but since there was no crane facility for unloading the consignment, the consignments were rebooked from there (Krishnarajapuram to Bangalore contonment in continuation of the previous bookings as per Railway Receipts dated 1.3.72, 1.3.72, 1-3-72, 2-3-72 and 24- 3-72. When at the Bangalore contonment station the consignments were unloaded it was seen that the consignments were in a tampered and damaged condition. The delivery station authorities gave open delivery. It was found that many items were missing and damaged in all the consignments and the delivery station authority issued open delivery certificate., four of them dated 6.4.1972 and the remaining one dated 12.4.1972. The consignments had been handed over to the Railways at Wadibunder in Bombay in sound condition and they were all packed to the satisfaction of the railway authorities who had issued the railway receipts without remarks. Therefore, the damage should have occurred during the time when the consignment were in the custody of the railway. The total value of the short delivery and damaged goods including the cost of repairs and replacements came to be Rs. 44000/- approximately. The first plaintiff claimed this amount under a letter dated 31.8.72 as required under S. 78-B of the Indian Railways Act but no amount was paid. The second plaintiff with whom the consignment had been insured. On payment of settlement of the claim, has been subrogated to the rights and remedies relating thereto. There is thus due a sum of Rs. 44,000/- from the defendants to the plaintiffs. Hence this suit. 3. The second plaintiff with whom the consignment had been insured. On payment of settlement of the claim, has been subrogated to the rights and remedies relating thereto. There is thus due a sum of Rs. 44,000/- from the defendants to the plaintiffs. Hence this suit. 3. The defendant-Railways contested the suit contending inter-alia so follows:— The Railway administration is not at all liable for any damage or loss to the consignments, and no claim was preferred in time as required under S. 78-B read with S. 140 of the Indian Railways Act. 4. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence adduced found that it was the defendant railways that was responsible for the non-delivery and damage caused to the consignments, and the plaintiffs are entitled to the amount of Rs. 44,000/- claimed as compensation. It further hold that the suit is not barred by limitation as contended by the defendant. However, holding that the notice sent by the plaintiffs under S. 78-B of the Indian Railways Act is not in time, it found that the suit is barred under that section. It therefore dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal by the plaintiffs. 5. Mr. David, learned counsel appearing for appellants-plaintiffs contends that the one finding of the trial Court that the claim made under S. 78-B of the Indian Railways Act is not in time upon which the suit has been dismissed, is erroneous. This was the only point upon which both sides argued in the Appeal. 6. As per S. 78-B a person shall not be entitled to compensation for the damage or non-delivery etc. of the goods entrusted to the Railways unless a claim has been made within six months from the date of delivery of the goods for carriage to the Railways. In this case the plaintiffs have in fact made a claim under Ex. A.35. But the question is whether this claim is made within six months from the date of delivery of the goods to the Railways. 7. According to the trial Court the goods were delivered as per the railway receipts Exs. A19 to A23 dated 29.12.71, 21.1.72, 8.2.72, 25.1.72 and 28.1.1972. While Ex. A35 claim is dated 30.8.1972 and this would show that even computing the time from the latest delivery under the receipt dated 8.2.1972 the claim is beyond six months time. 8. 7. According to the trial Court the goods were delivered as per the railway receipts Exs. A19 to A23 dated 29.12.71, 21.1.72, 8.2.72, 25.1.72 and 28.1.1972. While Ex. A35 claim is dated 30.8.1972 and this would show that even computing the time from the latest delivery under the receipt dated 8.2.1972 the claim is beyond six months time. 8. It was contended before the trial court on behalf of the plaintiffs that the time should be computed from the date of re-booking at Krishnarajapuram and not from the date when the goods were originally delivered at Wadibundar, Bombay. If the time is to be computed from the date of re-booking it is not in dispute that the claim under S. 78-B will be in time. This contention of the plaintiffs was rejected by the trial court. I do not think that the trial court is correct in doing so. As in this case as per the original receipts Exs. A19 to A23 the consignments were to be unloaded at Krishnarajapuram. But there they were not unloaded but instead rebooked under fresh railway receipts Exs. A24 to A28 to be transported to Bangalore contonment. The original contract for transport under Exs. A19 to A23 was for transporting and delivering the goods by the railways at Krishnarajapuram. But delivery did not take place there, and a new contract of transport was entered into under Railway receipts Exs. A24 to A28. Quite reasonably it must be deemed that as far as the new contract i.e. rebooking is concerned the goods were delivered to the Railways only at Krishnarajapuram and on the dates borne by the railway receipts Ex. A34 to A28. The claim made under Ex. A35 must be held to be as regards the new or fresh contract under Ex. A24 to A28. Even in the notice Ex. A35 the plaintiffs have made it clear that the claim is in respect of the goods booked from Krishnarajapuram to Bangalore contonment. A similar case occurred in Brij Gopal v. The Governor General in Council I.L.R. 1950 All. 132. In that it was held that the six months must be computed from the date of rebooking. This decision strengthened my view. Therefore the trial court is wrong in holding that the claim under S. 78-B has not been made within six months from the date of delivery of the goods. 132. In that it was held that the six months must be computed from the date of rebooking. This decision strengthened my view. Therefore the trial court is wrong in holding that the claim under S. 78-B has not been made within six months from the date of delivery of the goods. As stated above, no other point was argued by either side. 9. The result is, the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit is set aside and the suit is decreed as prayed for with costs. The appeal is thus disposed of. No costs.