Short Note : 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for compensation on account of shortage in a consignment booked for carriage by rail. A consignment of brass sheets was booked on 25-2-1965 at Calcutta for delivery at Durg. The relevant forwarding note is Ex. D-2 and the railway receipt is Ex. D-1. At the time of the its delivery to the plaintiff at the destination on 8-3-1965, there was shortage in the consignment to the extent of 198 Kgs. Plaintiff was the endorsee for value of the railway receipt and as such owner of the consignment to whom delivery was given by the defendant at the destination. 2. After giving the requisite notice under section 78-B of the India Railways Act and S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the defendant, the plaintiff brought the suit to recover Rs. 1584/- as the price of 198 Kgs. of brass sheets which had not been delivered to the plaintiff and 80 Paise claimed as expenses of the notices. The claim made thus was in all for Rs. 1,584.80 Paise. 3. The main defence Was that the consignee did not comply with the prescribed packing conditions and as such the defendant was protected under section 77 C (1) (b) of the Indian Railways Act. 4. The trial Court held on all the points in favour of the plaintiff except one i.e. sec. 77 C (1) (b) of the Railways Act. In view of the protection available to the defendant under that provision, the suit was dismissed for that reason alone. On appeal by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court has affirmed that decree also for the same reason. Held: The only question in this appeal is whether the protection claimed by the defendant under section 77 C (1) (b) of the Railways Act is available to the defendant. That protection obviously is available only when the fact of defective or improper packing has been recorded by the sender or his agent in the forwarding note as contained in the provision itself. That protection obviously is available only when the fact of defective or improper packing has been recorded by the sender or his agent in the forwarding note as contained in the provision itself. In short, to avail of the benefit it must be shown by the railway administration that the consignment was defectively or improperly packed; that the Joss occasioned was the result of such defective improper packing and also that the fact of such defective or improper packing Was recorded by the sender or his agent in the forwarding note. Unless all these things are proved, the protection claimed is not available to the railway administration. In the present case, it has been assumed by both the Courts below that the further requirement of such an entry in the forwarding note by the sender or his agent is present in the forwarding note Ex. D-2 However, that is not so. A bare perusal of the forwarding note Ex. D-2 indicates that there is no entry therein of any defective or improper packing much Jess there being such an entry in the hand of the sender or his agent. Shri R. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent, after looking into the original forwarding note Ex. D-2 rightly admitted that this was so. Far this reason alone the protection of this provision is not available to the defendant. Shri Pandey tried to get over this difficulty by arguing that there appeared to be such an endorsement on the railway receipt. There is an endoresement in the railway receipt Ex. D-I which is not very legible but appears to be "CP not complied with". Even assuming that the endorsement relates to packing condition section 77C clearly, requires for such an entry to be made by the sender or his agent in the forwarding note so that an entry made by an officer of the railway administration and note by the sender or his agent in the railway receipt cannot have the same effect. Such an entry if any in the railway receipt Ex. D-I is, therefore, of no consequance. The only reason for which the suit was dismissed by the two Courts below is, therefore, non-existent since the condition precedent for attracting section 77 C (1) (b) is not present. 5. Such an entry if any in the railway receipt Ex. D-I is, therefore, of no consequance. The only reason for which the suit was dismissed by the two Courts below is, therefore, non-existent since the condition precedent for attracting section 77 C (1) (b) is not present. 5. In view of the above conclusion, the suit has to be decreed since the only reason for dismissal of the suit by the two Courts below, as stated above, is fallacious. Appeal allowed.