JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - The two suits out of which these appeals arise were filed by the Plaintiff Appellant against the railways for alleged deterioration to two consignments of A.D. Dyes despatched from Wadibunder on the Central Railway deliverable to the Plaintiff at Jharsuguda on the South Eastern Railway. first Appeal No. 18/1960 arises out of Money suit No. 37/1958 for recovery of the sum of Rs. 6485.89 N.P. as damages in respect of a consignment consisting of 23 drums of A.D. Dyes. First Appeal No. 37 of 1961 arises out of Money suit No. 203/1958 for recovery of Rs. 1039.22 nP. as damages for a consignment consisting of 16 drums of A.D. Dyes, both the consignments booked and despathed from Wadibunder deliverable to the Plaintiff at Jharsuguda as aforesaid. Both the said suits were analogously heard and were dismissed by the trial court. Hence this appeal. 2. The short facts are these: On August 1, and 3, 1957 the said two consignments consisting of total 39 drums of A.D. Dyes were hooked and delivered at Wadibunder Railway Station for being safely carried and delivered at Jharsuguda Railway Station. The consignments were carried at railway risk rate .The said consignments reached Jharsuguda on August 30, 1957 .On the night of August 30, 1957, there was heavy downpour of rain. On August 31, 1957, three drums were delivered to the Plaintiff and the rest of the drums were not delivered. The remaining drums were delivered on January, 5, 1958 in damaged condition as alleged. The Plaintiff's case is that the alleged damage was due to the negligence, carelessness and misconduct on the part of the railways and their employees in not carrying the consignments in well-secured carriage or wagon and in not taking proper care and precaution so long as the consignments were in their custody, possession or power and as such the railways are bound to make good the loss. The defence of the Defendant South Eastern Railway who contested the suits is that there was no negligence on the part of the railways and that there was inherent vice in the goods before booking for which the railway administrations are not liable; that the railway administrations took all precautions as a bailee and there was no negligence or misconduct as alleged. 3. 3. The main points for consideration are firstly the alleged liability, if any, of the railways on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and secondly the question of the extent of alleged damage, if any. 4. The undisputed legal position in the light of which the points involved are to be decided is this: On the question of liability Section 72 of the Railways Act as applicable to this case provides that the responsibility of a railway administration for the loss, destruction or deterioration of animals or goods delivered to the administration to be carried by railway shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be that of a bailee, u/s 152 and 161 of the Indian Contract Act. Section 152 of the Contract Act provides that the bailee, in the absence of any special contract, is not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the thing bailed, if he has taken the amount of care of it described in Section 151 of the Contract Act provides that in all cases of bailment the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, taken of his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed. u/s 150 of the Contract Act the bailor is bound to disclose faults in the goods bailed. As regards extent of damages, it is for the Plaintiff to prove the degree of the alleged deterioration of the goods on the basis of which the Plaintiff claims damages; Where a consignment of goods despatched by rail is damaged and a suit is brought against the railway for damages, the onus of proving the value of the goods booked and the extent of damage caused to the goods is on the Plaintiff. A damage certificate, on which the Plaintiff relies, states only the facts that the damage had, in fact, been caused to the goods but it does not amount to an acknowledgment of fact that the damage was caused by negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway officers. 5. Thus, in the present case the consignments having been carried at railway risk rate the railways are undoubtedly liable as bailee. 5. Thus, in the present case the consignments having been carried at railway risk rate the railways are undoubtedly liable as bailee. The railways appear to have been negligent to this extent, namely, that at Jharsuguda Railway Station the railways left the consignments in open platform during rainy season in the month of August. In fact, it rained heavily that night. The evidence is that at Jharsuguda there is a closed goods-shed. Therefore, the railways should have kept the two consignments consisting of dye stuff in their goods-shed. In the railway receipts the nature of the consignments "A.D. Dyes" was noted. The evidence of P.W. 1 who is a Chemist is that the contents of the drums were very sensitive to moist atmosphere; that if the same come in contact with moist atmosphere, the salt is oxidised into insoluble components and they become useless for dyes. The evidence of P.W. 2 who is a partner of the Plaintiff's firm is also to the effect that the suit dye is a very sensitive product; that if the said dye (powder) is kept in open air and as such comes in contact with wet moisture, the same will get lumped or damaged more or less. The witness further said that the damage occurred due to rain water getting inside the drums. Therefore having regard to the nature of the contents of the consignments and that it was rainy season it was the duty of the railways, as bailee, to keep the said "A. D.Dyes" consignments in the goods-shed after they arrived at Jharsuguda Railway Station. Therefore on the question of liability, I am of opinion that the railways were to that extent negligent with regard to the consignments at Jharsuguda for reasons as aforesaid. 6. Then the question is: Has the Plaintiff proved the extent of damages due to deterioration as claimed? In the written statement one of the defences taken by the railways was that there was inherent vice in the goods before booking for which the railways are not liable. The burden is on the Plaintiff to prove the condition of the goods at the time they were booked at Wadibunder. The Plaintiff has not adduced any evidence as to the extent of the alleged damage, if any, or at all. The evidence of P.W. 1 the Chemist is not helpful. Apart from the general practice regarding packing etc. The burden is on the Plaintiff to prove the condition of the goods at the time they were booked at Wadibunder. The Plaintiff has not adduced any evidence as to the extent of the alleged damage, if any, or at all. The evidence of P.W. 1 the Chemist is not helpful. Apart from the general practice regarding packing etc. he does not say anything about what actually was done with regard to the suit consignments. In fact, he was not present when the drums in question were packed and sealed at Wadibunder. Nor does the evidence of the other witness P.W 2 throw any light on the point. He also says that he was not present at the time of booking of the suit wagons. These are the only two witnesses examined by the Plaintiff. There is no material from which it can be reasonably inferred that the goods when booked were in sound condition. The evidence of P.W. 2 is that the Plaintiff?s firm have a stock register which, however, has not been produced. The non-production of the document was rightly commented and it naturally leads to a presumption against the Plaintiff. It is not that the entire two consignments were wholly damaged. The evidence of P.W. 2 is that after taking delivery of the drums as per the shortage certificate, the Plaintiff brought them to their shop that there, they took out the damaged power articles from the drums and threw the same out; that the good stuff left in the drums were sold at the usual price. The evidence of the witness further is that the good stuff from the suit damaged drums were mixed by the Plaintiff with the other existing good stock and sold. The fact that certain quantities of the stuff in the suit drums were good and that they were sold at usual price makes it difficult to ascertain the actual damage suffered by the Plaintiff by reason of the alleged deterioration. Moreover, the (sic) mixture of the good stuff taken out of the suit damaged drums with other existing good stock further complicates the position. The stock register if produced would have presumably shown the actual position. The shortage certificates (Exts.2 and 2/a) by themselves are not conclusive. They do not show the actual extent of the damage alleged to have been suffered by the Plaintiff. The stock register if produced would have presumably shown the actual position. The shortage certificates (Exts.2 and 2/a) by themselves are not conclusive. They do not show the actual extent of the damage alleged to have been suffered by the Plaintiff. There is no satisfactory evidence as to what degree or extent the Plaintiff really suffered the alleged damage as claimed. The contemporaneous accounts should have been produced to show how the Plaintiff dealt with the damaged drums in the suit, namely, what quantity of the damaged stock out of the suit drums was thrown away, what quantity of the good stuff was retained and at what price they were sold. P.W. 2 of the Plaintiff-firm deposed that they had a book showing all these. Still the book had not been produced in court. The non-production of such material documents is significant, and naturally leads the court to draw an adverse inference against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof. An unreported Division Bench decision of this Court in Messrs Bharadia Brothers v. Union of India represented by the General Manager South Electron Railways and Anr. supports the railways contention that in the absence of proof of the extent of actual damages alleged to have been suffered, the Plaintiff?s claim for damages must fail. 7. There is no merit in these appeals. The decision of the learned trial court, dismissing both the suits, is upheld. As regard costs, in the circumstances of the case, each party to bear his own costs throughout. Narasimham, C.J 8. I agree. 9. The Plaintiff?s suit must fail for two reasons: (1) He has failed to show that when the goods were booked at Wadibuder they were in an undamaged condition; (2) He has also failed to establish that he actually suffered damage to the extent claimed in the plaint. 10. There is practically no evidence about the condition of the goods at the time of their delivery to the Railway at Wadibunder. Neither P.W. 1 nor P.W. 2 has any personal knowledge about this fact. No presumption can be made that the dyestuffs must have been booked in a good condition at the time of their despatch. 10. There is practically no evidence about the condition of the goods at the time of their delivery to the Railway at Wadibunder. Neither P.W. 1 nor P.W. 2 has any personal knowledge about this fact. No presumption can be made that the dyestuffs must have been booked in a good condition at the time of their despatch. When the Defendants in their written statement (paragraph 3) took a specific plea to the effect that there was inherent vice in the goods before booking, the plain tiff should have led evidence to show the condition of the goods at the time of booking. It is true that the Railway was also partly negligent in keeping the goods in the open platform at Jharsuguda in the rainy season. But unless it is further shown that at the time of booking the goods at Wadibunder they were in proper condition it cannot be said that the damage noticed at the time of delivery was solely caused by the rains at Jharsuguda. 11. First Appeal No. 15 of 1958 decided on January 23, 1961. 12. As regards the second reason also the Plaintiff has not led all available evidence. It is true that, as there was open delivery, the extent of the damage was noted in the railway receipts but the Plaintiff has not led satisfactory evidence to show the actual extent of the loss suffered by him. He said that he threw away the damaged portion and mixed the good portion with other dyestuffs in his shop and sold them to his customers. The Stock Register and other papers which would show the exact quantity that was considered to be good and mixed with the existing stock and sold have not been produced. The Plaintiff frankly admitted in cross-examination that there was no mention in his Account books as to how he dealt with the damaged drums. He further clarified this admission by saying that his books will not show that he threw away the damaged stock from the damaged drums while retaining the good stuff therein. He however added that he has another book which will show this fact, but he did not produce that book in court. He also mentioned about the existence of a Stock Register for this purpose but that register was not proved. He however added that he has another book which will show this fact, but he did not produce that book in court. He also mentioned about the existence of a Stock Register for this purpose but that register was not proved. Thus, apart from his uncorroborated oral testimony there is practically no evidence on record to show that he actually suffered loss to the extent claimed in the plaint. The claim against the Railway cannot succeed by merely showing that at the time of delivery there was partial damage to the consignment. The Plaintiff must further show that he sustained loss thereby. If, as contended by the Railway the Plaintiff mixed up the dyestuff in the consignment with other good dyestuffs in his shop and sold the entire stock at market prices he would have suffered no loss and the claim must fail. Hence, when the Railway, in paragraph 5 of their written statement, challenged the amount claimed by the Plaintiff and stated that he must prove the loss by the production of the regional sale invoices and account books, the Plaintiff ought to have led some documentary evidence, relating to the contemporaneous period, in support of his claim. He should not have remained content with his uncorroborated oral testimony. I therefore agree that the appeal should be dismissed as pointed out by my learned brother. Final Result : Dismissed