Short Note : 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of sections 73 and 76 of the Indian Railways Act the burden was on the non-applicant-Railways to prove that the delivery was delayed without the negligence on the part of the railway authorities and in view of this, according to learned counsel, the suit filed by the plaintiff ought to have been decreed. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions reported in Union of India v. Ayodhya Prasad 1976 JLJ 650 ; Union of India v. Shankerlal, 1972 JLJ 1039 ; M/s Baijnath Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1971 Cal. 321 ; and Union of India v. Brij Lal Purshottamdas, AIR 1969 SC 817 . Learned counsel for the non-applicant on the other hand contended that under section 72 of the Railways Act. If the goods were perishable it was for the plaintiff-petitioner to have stated so in clear terms. Admittedly, nothing was stated. It was further contended that in the plaint the plaintiff did not allege that coconuts were green coconuts with water which could deteriorate on account of delay in delivery and in absence of direct relation between deterioration and delay in delivery the suit could not be decreed. Learned counsel relied on section 76 of the Railways Act, for that purpose. Held : Admittedly, in the plaint it is not stated that the coconuts booked for delivery were green coconuts with water. It is also clear that as required under section 72 the goods were not loaded with a declaration that they ale perishable goods as stated in section 72 (b) (it) of the Act. Admittedly there, fore, there is neither any pleading nor any evidence to indicate that deterioration took place in the goods on account of delay in delivery. The petitioner plaintiff claimed to have purchased these goods from someone else in Bhroach and transported them by truck upto Dohad and booked these goods for transit to Bamaina by train. Even the person from whom the petitioner purchased these goods has not been examined and there is nothing in evidence to indicate that the coconuts booked from Dohad were in a state which could deteriorate within a fortnight. Section 76 of the Railways Act clearly indicates that the railway administration shall be responsible for loss if the deterioration of goods is proved by the owner to have been caused by delay. Section 76 of the Railways Act clearly indicates that the railway administration shall be responsible for loss if the deterioration of goods is proved by the owner to have been caused by delay. As there is no evidence to indicate that the goods deteriorated merely because of delay the Court below was right in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. The decisions on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner are of no consequence in the context of the facts alleged and proved in the case. 1976 JLJ 650 , 1972 JLJ 1039 , AIR 1971 Cal. 321 & AIR 1969 SC 817 distinguished. Revision dismissed.