Hans-aria, J.- A decree for a small amount of Rs. 5528.81 has brought the big Railways before us because as per Shri Duara the decree has been passed in violation of section 74 of the Indian Railways Act, brevimana the Act. 2. The decree came to be awarded in the suit filed by the respondent who was the consignee of two bales of handloom sarees. The booking was from Mau Junction and was meant for Nowgong town. The goods reached the destination on 5.3.62 having been booked on 9.2.62. The consignment was accepted by two employees of the plaintiff on 7.3.62 at about 4.30 P.M. It is the case of the suitor that as there was rush at the time of taking delivery and it was getting dark, the consignment could not be examined thoroughly then. A pony cart was hired and the bales were taken to the shop of the plaintiff which is about a mile from the railway station. PW.1, the attorney of the plaintiff firm, looked at the bales and found that there were marks of tampering and also damage in the packing cover. Some foul play was suspected and so the bales were brought back immediately to the railway station. This was at about 6 P.M. An open delivery was thereafter demanded from the railway which was refused. All these bales were then kept in the railway platform to be guarded by PWs. 5 and 11, who are the persons who had earlier come to the station to take delivery. Next day i.e. on 8.3.62, the matter was reported to Deputy Superintendent of Police (Railway), whereafter PW.7 seized some articles from inside the bales. It was then noticed that instead of handloom sarees what was inside the bales were some torn gunny bags, iron patties and wood pieces. Due claim was made with the railway and on their denial a suit for realisation of Rs. 5528.81 was filed. This amount included a sum of Rs. 500/-towards business loss. The defendants denied their liability, imputed motive to the plaintiff in filing the suit to make illegal gain, and took stand that they would not be liable at all as the loss had not occurred due to any negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administra­tion or any of its servants. 3. 500/-towards business loss. The defendants denied their liability, imputed motive to the plaintiff in filing the suit to make illegal gain, and took stand that they would not be liable at all as the loss had not occurred due to any negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administra­tion or any of its servants. 3. 7 issues were framed in the suit and 11 witnesses were examined by the plaintiff in support of its case. Some documents were also exhibited. The principal defendants (hereinafter the defendants) adduced no evidence. After careful analysis of the materials on record the trial court decreed the suit as above. 4. In the present appeal two issues in the main have been pressed before us for decision. These are issues No. 3 and 4 which read as below: "3. Whether the defendants are liable for plaintiff's claim as alleged in the plaint? 4. Under what circumstances the delivery of the consign­ment in the suit was taken by the plaintiff at Nowgong Railway Station?" Other issues relating to plaintiff's having right to sue (Issue No. 1); that suit being had for want of legal and valid notice (Issue No. 2 ); the plaintiff being owner of the consignment (Issue No. 5 ) have not been agitated before us. Issue No. 6 relating to quantum of claim requires decision as to whether business loss of Rs. 500/- could have been awarded. Issue No. 7 is about relief. 5. The main stand of the defendants on Issues No. 3 and 4 is that as admittedly the two bales had been delivered on 7.3.62 and had baa accepted without any objection, they are not liable for any shortage or loss which was discovered subsequently. Shri Duara makes a grievance about the view taken by the learned District Judge that the liability of the railway admini­stration did not cease on the consignment having been delivered. Further, according to him, the learned trial court did not apply its full mind to the requirements of section 74 of the Act. 6. It is no doubt true that if after taking delivery of a consignment in good and sound condition, the consignee meddles with the fame, and with a view to obtain illegal gain tries to realise compensation or damage from the carrier, the same could not be permissible under the law. 6. It is no doubt true that if after taking delivery of a consignment in good and sound condition, the consignee meddles with the fame, and with a view to obtain illegal gain tries to realise compensation or damage from the carrier, the same could not be permissible under the law. We have, therefore, to see whether the present is a case of this nature. From what has been stated by PWs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 11 we cannot accept that the present was a case where the plaintiff firm had lodged fake claim with a view to obtain any illegal gain. From the evidence of PWs. 5 and 11 it is quite clear that at the time of taking deli­very there was great rush and the evening shadow had engulfed a cold month. The packing conditions could not therefore be examined minutely. This is even supported by PW. 9, a railway porter who was in-charge of the godown at the relevant time. Immediately, after the consignment was brought to the shop, it came to be examined by PW. 1 and having found some tempearing marks he questioned PW. 2 about the same, as the latter was the person who was present when the goods were packed and booked at Mau Junction. On being satisfied that they were booked properly, doubt naturally arose in the mind about some foul play when the goods were in custody of the defendants PW. 3, an independent witness, also noticed tampering marks and felt that there were foreign materials inside the bales. Hurriedly, therefore, the two bales were brought back to the railway station, and the entire exercise was over within 1½ hours. On these facts as established by the aforesaid witnesses we cannot find any foul play on the part of the plaintiff firm. As PW. 2 had proved about due packing and booking at the original station, and as from the materials on record we are satis­fied that the shortage had occurred before the bales were taken delivery of, the only other conclusion which is available is that the wrong has been committed when the goods were in the custody of the railway. It has, therefore, to be held that the loss had happened due to the negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administration or any of its servants. It has, therefore, to be held that the loss had happened due to the negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administration or any of its servants. This satisfies the call of section 74 of the Act. Shri K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent has referred in this connection to The East India Railway Co. vs. Sispal, 16 CWN 329 wherein it has been held by a Division Bench of that Court speaking through Mookerjee, J., the great Indian Judge, that the grant by the consignee of a clear receipt for goods delivered by a railway company does not affect the right to compensation for loss or damage actually proved to have been caused to the goods while in the custody of the company. Such a receipt, as per this decision, only raises a presumption that the alleged loss had not taken place, but the presumption may be rebuttied. We are satisfied from what has been stated above that the presumption in the present case was sufficiently rebutted. We would therefore accept the finding of the learned trial court on Issues No. 3 and 4. 7. As to Issue No. 6, which is related to the quantum of compensation, Shri Duara brings to our notice the provisions in section 78 (d) of the Act which states that railway admini­stration shall not be responsible for any indirect or consequen­tial damage or loss. The claim of Rs. 500/- on account of business loss can be regarded as a consequential damage. We would therefore exclude this claim and modify the decree to a sum of Rs. 5028.81. 8. Subject to the above modification in the quantum of claim, the appeal is dismissed with costs.