Judgment 1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff who has lost the suit in both the Courts. 2. The plaintiff brought the suit against the Union of India and the North-Eastern Railway Administration for recovery of compensation on account of shortage in delivery of a consignment of 1,274 pieces of C. R sheets, which was looked at Rourkela Railway Station on 16-12-1974 under invoice No. 1, railway receipt No. 554820 for delivery at Purnea Court Railway Station on North-Eastern Railway. The consignment had been booked self by Hindustan Steel Limited and the plaintiff was the endorsee consignee. It was alleged that out of the consignment 890 pieces of C. R. sheets were delivered on 13-1-1965 and 298 pieces were delivered on 26-8-1965. A short certificate regarding 87 pieces of C. R. sheets, which were not delivered, was issued. A notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the North-Eastern Railway Administration was served before the institution of the suit. In the suit the plaintiff claimed Rupees 2,565.39 as the price of 87 pieces of C. R. sheets against the Union of India representing the North-Eastern Railway Administration. The Southern Railway, which was the booking railway, was, however, not impleaded in the suit. 3. The Union of India filed a written statement and, besides taking other pleas, took the defence that the short certificate should have mentioned the shortage in weight as it could not be said that there was actual shortage of 87 pieces of C. R. sheets. It also took the plea that the suit was bad for non-joinder of Southern Railway. 4. The learned Munsif, who tried the suit, upon a consideration of the evidence found that out of the consignment, 87 pieces of C. R. sheets were not delivered. The learned Munsif further took the view that the claim of the plaintiff has been correctly made in the plaint as weight of the sheets could be easily calculated with reference to the invoice (Ext. 2) of Hindustan Steel Limited. According to the finding of the learned Munsif, the Railway Administration was liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff for non-delivery of a part of the consignment. 2) of Hindustan Steel Limited. According to the finding of the learned Munsif, the Railway Administration was liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff for non-delivery of a part of the consignment. Having recorded the above findings in favour of the plaintiff, the learned Munsif took the view that in view of the provisions of Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for damage, because he failed to prove as to where the loss had taken place and had not impleaded the booking railway, namely, the Southern Railway Administration which could only be made liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff. 5. On appeal filed by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court held that in view of the amendment of Section 80 of the Act in the year 1961 option has been given to the plaintiff to bring a suit against one or other of the Railway Administrations in cases of through booking. It accordingly held that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of the Southern Railway and on that ground alone it should not have been dismissed. The lower appellate Court, however, dismissed the appeal in view of the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 74 of the Act. Section 74 (3) of the Act reads as follows:- "When any animals or goods are deemed to have been tendered to be carried, or are carried, at the owners risk rate, then, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 73, the railway administration shall not be responsible for any loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery, in transit, of such animals or goods, from whatever cause arising, except upon proof that such loss, destruction, damage, deterioration, or non-delivery was due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administration or of any of its servants." It is an admitted position in the instant case that the plaintiff had not alleged that the short delivery of the consignment was due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration or of any of its servants. In view of the specific provision contained in Section 74 (3) of the Act, therefore, the lower appellate Court was justified in holding that the Railway Administration was not liable to pay compensation. 6 Mr. In view of the specific provision contained in Section 74 (3) of the Act, therefore, the lower appellate Court was justified in holding that the Railway Administration was not liable to pay compensation. 6 Mr. Jyotirmoy Ghose, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, drew our attention to the provision contained in Section 76-F of the Act and contended that in view of the provision contained in Section 76-F a wrong view has been taken by the lower appellate Court. We find it difficult to accept this submission. The provision of S. 76-F will be attracted only where the whole of the consignment of goods carried at owners risk is not delivered to the consignee or the whole of any package forming part of a consignment carried at owners risk is not delivered to the consignee. It is an admitted position in this case that the whole of the consignment of goods was not lost. In the plaint it is nowhere stated that the C. R. sheets were despatched in packages or that a package containing the C. R. sheets was not delivered. Section 76-F of the Act, therefore, has no application to the facts of the case. 7. No other point was urged by Mr. Ghose. In the result, this appeal is dismissed but, as no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents, there will be no order as to cost.