JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - The unsuccessful Plaintiff in the Courts below is the Petitioner against the confirming judgment by which the Plaintiff's suit against the railway for recovery of Rs. 219.70 nP. being the price of 200 damaged gunny bags including expenses and profit that the Plaintiff could have made as pleaded in the plaint was dismissed. 2. The facts briefly stated are these on June 10, 1960, 200 gunny bags were booked in three bundles by an up passenger train from Kolaghat in West Bengal for delivery at Kenduapada in Balasore district in Orissa. On September 10, 1900, the consignment reached the destination at Kenduapada b 31h Down passenger train which obviously shows that the goods were over-carried beyond its destination. On September 1960, the Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Station Master, Kenduapada, for assessment and open delivery. The said letter was acknowledged., On November 7, 1960, the Plaintiff gave notice u/s 77 of the Railways Act. On November 18, 1960, the Station Master, Kenduapada, wrote a letter to the Plaintiff requesting hi to take delivery within a fortnight. On November 30, 1960, the Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Station Master, Kenduapada, requesting him to give the Plaintiff open delivery. On February 22, 1961, the Plaintiff having not received any response from the railway administration again wrote to the Chief Commercial Superintendent a letter requesting him for settlement of the Plaintiff's claim. On May 4, 19M, the Chief Commercial Superintendent wrote to the Plaintiff a letter requesting him to take delivery within ten days. On June 15, 1961, the Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Chief Commercial Superintendent stating that the consignment had been completely damaged and repacked. Ultimately the Plaintiff filed the suit on August 12, 1961, after serving notice u/s 80, CPC Code. The defence of the railway is that the Plaintiff has no cause of action in that no delivery was taken by the Plaintiff as requested and that there was no damage to the consignment as alleged. Both the Courts below dismissed the Plaintiff's claim on the ground that there was no proof of the alleged damage and that the extent of damage could not be established by the Plaintiff. Hence this civil revision by the Plaintiff. 3. Both the Courts below dismissed the Plaintiff's claim on the ground that there was no proof of the alleged damage and that the extent of damage could not be established by the Plaintiff. Hence this civil revision by the Plaintiff. 3. It is unfortunate that inspite of repeated requests made by the railway administration to take delivery of the consignment the Plaintiff insisted on the railway giving him open delivery. Apparently the Plaintiff had been wrongly advised in insisting on open delivery in the face of the legal position that a consignee is not entitled to claim open delivery from the railway administration; a railway company is under no obligation to re-weigh the goods before delivery where the identity of the goods is not in question and if the consignee refuses to accept delivery that ground he does so at his own risk and is not entitled to claim damages for non-delivery. Union of India (UOI) Vs. Serajuddin and Another, ; Dominion of India v. Netai Chandra Haldar AIR 1952 Cat 726. In the present case the reasoning on which the learned trial Court dismissed the Plaintiff's claim is this: It has been amply proved by the Plaintiff that the consignment was received in drenched condition after it was over-carried beyond its destination. Since the consignment consists of gunny bags which was received in drenched condition, it cannot be deemed that it would suffer deterioration if it continues to be kept in bundles for a long time. But the extent of deterioration cannot be ascertained unless the bundles are opened and examined. The Plaintiff was offered delivery of the same on the next date of arrival of the consignment but he refused to take it insisting that he be given open delivery ... ... ... ... there is no obligation on a carrier of goods to give open examined delivery to the consignee. Where goods are only deteriorated and not absolutely lost, the consignee cannot refuse to take delivery of them. It is the duty of the consignee to take delivery of the goods and make a claim for damages for the deterioration which was caused. It was on this reasoning that the Plaintiff's claim was disallowed and this was accepted by the learned lower appellate Court. The Plaintiff should have realised that without opening t bundles the extent of deterioration cannot be ascertained and the damage cannot be measured. It was on this reasoning that the Plaintiff's claim was disallowed and this was accepted by the learned lower appellate Court. The Plaintiff should have realised that without opening t bundles the extent of deterioration cannot be ascertained and the damage cannot be measured. Thus the Plaintiff failed to establish the extent of damages claimed by him. 4. This point is covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Manchand Mulchand Firm through Hariram Singhania and Anr. v. Union of India 29 C.L.T. 193 through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway and another where it was that 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. In the absence of proof of the extent of actual damages alleged to have been suffered, the Plaintiff's claim for damages must fail. 5. In the present case, the description of the goods at thee time of booking as appears from the Forwarding Note Ext. A is "3 bundles of old, used and empty gunny bags". This is prima facie evidence of the fact that at the time of booking of the goods the gunny bags in question were 'old and' used. 6. In this view of the case the decision of the Court below is upheld. This civil revision is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 50/ -. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed