Judgment N.L.Untwalia, J. 1. This is an application by the plaintiff under Sec.25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the decision of the learned Small Cause Court Judge dismissing his suit for realisation of Rs. 205/127- as compensation for short delivery of 4 maunds 37 seers of sugar forming, part of a consignment of 110 bags. The consignment was despatched in two wagons, 80 bags in one and 30 bags in another. According to the plaintiffs case in paragraph 2 of the plaint when the consignment reached the destination station, three bags out of the full load wagon containing, 80 bags were found cut and slack and 4 mds. 37 seers of sugar was found short. To this effect was the evidence of the plaintiff himself. This fact was not denied either in the written statement or by railways witness, the goods clerk at the Bhagalpur station. In my opinion, therefore, there is no doubt in this case that at the time the goods were unloaded at the destination station three bags of sugar were found cut and short in weight. 2. The learned Small Cause Court Judge has dismissed the plaintiffs suit on the ground that the Railway Administration concerned has discharged its onus of proving that it had taken as much care of the consignment as was required by a man of ordinary prudence. It is to be noted that the consignment was booked at railway risk rate. This fact was mentioned in the plaint itself and seems to be beyond any dispute. The learned Small Cause Court Judge has also stated this fact on the basis of the railway receipt (Exhibit C). I shall also note here one finding of the learned Small Cause Court Judge that in the railway receipt the note was that the loading and unloading was to be done by the consignor and consignee, that is to say, the loading was to be done by the consignor and unloading was to be done by the consignee. It is further in evidence of the clerk of the. despatching station, Chanpatia, that he noted the number of bags and the weight in the railway receipt according to what was mentioned in the forwarding note. It is further in evidence of the clerk of the. despatching station, Chanpatia, that he noted the number of bags and the weight in the railway receipt according to what was mentioned in the forwarding note. I shall, therefore, assume for the purposes of this case in favour of the opposite party, as has been contended on its behalf, that the consignment was booked in this case by stating the clause "said to contain" in the railway receipt. Relying upon this finding, Mr. Bose for the opposite party contended that it was for the plaintiff to prove that the bags which were despatched were intact and uncut and there being no legal evidence to that effect, the plaintiff cannot succeed. He placed reliance in support of this contention on the cases of Dominion of India V/s. Firm Museram Kishunprasad, AIR 1950 Nag 85 and Union of India V/s. Lekhu Reddiar, AIR 1956 Mad 178 and two unreported decisions of this court in the cases of Jamunadas Agarwala V/s. Union of India, Civil Revision No. 573 of 1951, decided by Lakshmikanta, C.J., on 29-2-1952, and Madhusudan Das V/s. Union of India, second Appeal No. 1299 of 1957 decided by Mahapatra, J. on 10-12-1959. 3. The two unreported decisions of this court referred to above are cases of consignments booked at owners risk. The reports of the Nagpur and Madras cases do not indicate as to whether the consignments dealt with in those cases were booked at owners risk or at railway risk. The next point of distinction between these cases and this case is that in those four cases the shortage was in the number of packages and there was no question of any package found cut or pilfered at the destination station, but in the instant case three bags were found cut; number of the bags received at the destination station was as mentioned in the railway receipt and as said to have been despatched. That, in my opinion, brings about a clear distinction between the instant case and the facts of the other four cases. Although Suresh Prasad, the goods clerk of the despatching station, has said in his evidence that he did not examine the bags before loading, in my opinion that does not exonerate the railway from its liability of a bailee in a railway risk case. Although Suresh Prasad, the goods clerk of the despatching station, has said in his evidence that he did not examine the bags before loading, in my opinion that does not exonerate the railway from its liability of a bailee in a railway risk case. No provision in the Railway Act is there entitling the railway to cut this liability further -- the liability under Section 72 of the Railways Act which is that of a bailee by saying that the railway at the time of accepting the bags was not under an obligation to see the condition of the bags. Reference has been made to Rule 15 of the General Tariff Rules in the Nagpur case on which reliance has been placed before me also by Mr. Bose. That rule runs as follows: "The weight, description and classification of goods and quotation of rates as given in the Railway Receipt and forwarding note are merely inserted for the purpose of estimating the Railway charges and the Railway reserves the right of re-measurement, re-weighment, re-classification and recalculation of rates, terminals and other charges and correction of any other errors at the place of destination and of collecting any amount that may have been omitted or undercharged. No admission is conveyed by a Railway Receipt that the weight as shown therein has been received or that the description of goods as furnished by the consignor is correct". Extending tile meaning of this rule to the utmost extent in favour of the railway, I do not find any word therein to show that the Railway Administration, While accepting a consignment booked at railway risk and accepting the bailees responsibility, is also entitled to take shelter under this rule to say that it or its employees did not examine the condition of the bags and packages despatched at railway risk rate and, therefore, is not liable for the cut condition and the consequent short delivery of the portion of the goods despatched in the bags or packages. In my opinion, in a consignment which has been booked at railway risk it has got to be assumed, unless the contrary is proved by the railway, that the bags when despatched were in a sound condition. In my opinion, in a consignment which has been booked at railway risk it has got to be assumed, unless the contrary is proved by the railway, that the bags when despatched were in a sound condition. The railway by noting in the railway receipt that the consignment was booked under "L.U. conditions" meaning thereby that the loading and unloading were to be done by the consignor and the consignee was not admitting either the correctness of the number of the bag and/or the weight and if the bags would not have been found cut, perhaps in such a case the railway will escape its responsibility unless it is proved by the plaintiff that at the time of despatch correct number of bags with the weight stated in the railway receipt were despatched, but as I have said above, I am not prepared to extend the meaning of Rule 15 to this extent that even in regard to the condition of the bags the railway is under no obligation to examine it when it is accepting the consignment at railway risk, that is to say, it is charging comparatively higher rate of freight than a consignment which is booked at owners risk. It is a well established proposition of law that in a consignment booked under railway risk the condition of the consignment or the packages forming it and the consequent shortage in weight is a prima facie proof of the negligence of the bailee, that is , the Railway Administration, and it was for the Administration to discharge its responsibility by showing as to how the bags were cut in spite of taking all reasonable precaution by it as a man of ordinary prudence would have taken. That having of been done in this case, the decision of the learned Small Cause Court Judge is not in accordance with law and must be set aside. I, therefore, allow this application in revision and decree the plaintiffs suit in part for a sum of Rs. 179/12/- only the price of 4 maunds 37 seers of sugar delivered short. The plaintiff is held not entitled to the other three items, namely, profit, cost of notice and postal expenses claimed in the plaint, as in my judgment he is not entitled to those items in law. 179/12/- only the price of 4 maunds 37 seers of sugar delivered short. The plaintiff is held not entitled to the other three items, namely, profit, cost of notice and postal expenses claimed in the plaint, as in my judgment he is not entitled to those items in law. The plaintiff will also get interest pendente lite and future at 6 per cent per annum on the said sum of Rs. 179/12/- and the proportionate casts in the court below. I would, however, make no order for costs of this court.