Short Note : 1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit claiming damages on the ground that 16.72 bags i.e. 6.72 quintals of gram dal of a consignment booked by rail, were damaged during transit by rain water, on account of which the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 1,400, as detailed in paragraph 8 of the plaint. The consignment was booked at the Railway risk and there is no dispute that 16.72 quintals of gram dal pertaining to this consignment had been found damaged by rain water at the time of its delivery at the destination. Held : The first contention of Shri Pande is that the extent of damage and the quantum of compensation have not been proved by the plaintiff. This argument must be rejected. As earlier stated the only evidence adduced in the case is that led by the plaintiff and the same remains unrebutted. Apart from the plaintiff's claim being confined only to the extent certified by Ex. P-2 granted by the defendant's employees, the evidence led by the plaintiff at the trial also proves the requisite facts for this purpose. P.W.1 Shanker Lal has clearly stated that 16.72 quintals of gram dal of this consignment was totally damaged having become rotten and the same was, therefore, thrown away, at the time of taking delivery of the remaining consignment. He also proved that the price of gram dal was Rs. 73.00 per quintal at that time, in addition to the price of gunny bags which was Rs. 2,00 per bag at that time. There is absolutely nothing to justify rejection of this unrebutted testimony. The facts so proved have been rightly found sufficient by the trial Court to hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 1,336.56 ps. as compensation for the goods. 2. The other argument of Shri Pande is that the plaintiff being an endorsee of the Railway receipt could not bring this suit unless he was also found to be the owner of the goods. According to him, the trial Court held in plaintiff's favour merely on the ground that he was endorsee of the railway receipt. 2. The other argument of Shri Pande is that the plaintiff being an endorsee of the Railway receipt could not bring this suit unless he was also found to be the owner of the goods. According to him, the trial Court held in plaintiff's favour merely on the ground that he was endorsee of the railway receipt. This point does not require any elaborate consideration for the simple reason that there is unrebutted evidence to prove that the plaintiff had paid the price of the entire consignment and was the owner thereof: Admittedly, the defendant gave delivery of the entire consignment to the plaintiff and the endorsements made on the railway receipt produced by the defendant clearly show that the plaintiff was endorsee for value of the consignment. That apart, P.W.1 Shanker Lal has clearly stated that he had paid the price of the entire consignment and plaintiff', witness Meghraj also proves this fact and says that he had sold the railway receipt to the plaintiff Radheshyam. On this undisputed fact, it is difficult to appreciate such an argument. Even applying the test suggested by Shri Pande to decide whether the plaintiff had the right to sue, it is obvious that the plaintiff's right to sue in the present case cannot be challenged by the defendant. Several authorities were cited by Shri Pande while arguing this point, but it is not necessary to refer to any one of them because they have no application. As already stated above applying the test suggested by Shri Pande, the plaintiff's right to sue in the present case is beyond dispute. This argument is also, therefore, rejected. Appeal allowed.