K. L. ISSRANI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the first appeal by the plaintiff-appellants, whose suit has been dismissed by the judgment and decree dated llth June, 1985, passed by 2nd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 2-B of 1983. ( 2 ) THE plaintiffs-appellants had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 38,762. 05 p. against the respondent Railway on account of damages and for short delivery of the consignment. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No. 1 had purchased in all 2600 bags 'dhanbeej' weighing 1942 quintals, 35 kilograms and 800 grams from Andhra Pradesh Rajya Sahkari Vipanan sangh, Vijaywada, which was despatched to them through Railway at kekeloor Railway Station by Railway Receipt No. C-151331, Invoice No. 3, dated 6-6-1980 by the goods train run by the respondent. According to the plaiutitfs-appellants. when the consignment reached the destination it was found that in place of 650 bags loaded in wagon No. WR 71073 only 635 bags were found, thus 15 bags in that wagon were received short. Out of remaining 635 bags, in 200 bags, only 150 quintals 'dhanbeej' was found, and out of 210 bags 157. 50 quintals and from remaining 225 bags 168. 75 quintals 'dhanbeej' was found completely demaged. Thus, total 224. 77 quintals 'dhanbeej' was damaged. On assessment, the defendant-respondent had issued a certificate to that effect. According to the plaintiffs, 325 bags at the rate of Rs. 5/- per bag were also damaged. Consequently, the price of the damaged 'dhanbeej' was claimed at Rs. 165/- per quintal, which comes to Rs. 37,087. 05 Paisa and the price of bags was taken to be Rs. 1675/-and thus total claims of Rs. 38,762. 05 P, were made. According to the plaintiffs, the goods were booked at the 'railway Risk' and the damage was caused on account of negligence and misconduct of the Railways. A notice under Section 78-B of the Indian Railway's Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also served on the respondent, but no payment was made. The plaintiffs have also claimed Rs. 50/- as notice charges and interest at 15% per annum from 6-6-1980 to 26-7-1980 and at the rate of 16% per annum thereafter. ( 3 ) THE defendant-respondent has denied the claim of the appellants-plaintiffs in toto. The plaintiffs have also claimed Rs. 50/- as notice charges and interest at 15% per annum from 6-6-1980 to 26-7-1980 and at the rate of 16% per annum thereafter. ( 3 ) THE defendant-respondent has denied the claim of the appellants-plaintiffs in toto. In additional pleadings, they had pleaded that the suit is barred in view of the earlier civil suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant, which was Civil Suit No. 37-B/82 before a Court of Civil Judge, class II, Sakti. ( 4 ) THE trial Court has held that it is not proved that the plaintiff No. 2 was the consignee of the goods. It was also not proved that the consignment was booked at 'railway Risk'. The trial Court further held that it was also not proved that the railway had not taken care of the goods in the transit and the plaintiffs failed to prove the value of the consignment claimed at rs. 38,762. 05 P. , as pleaded in para 8 of the plaint. However, the trial court held that the notices, as mentioned by the plaintiffs, were proved to have been sent to the defendant. For the effect of Civil Suit No. 37-B of 1982, the trial Court found that the respondent failed to prove the same. However, the suit was dismissed in toto. Against the said judgment of the trial Court, the plaintiff-appellants have filed this appeal. ( 5 ) HERE, the plaiatiffs have submitted that they have established their case which. has not been rebutted by the respondent. No one has been examined by the respondent to rebut the version given on oath in addition to the pleadings which are materially admitted by the respondent. The counsel for the respondent disputed the arguments of the appellants and has submitted that it was for the appellants to have proved their case and the certificate of shortage was issued without prejudice to the right of the respondent to deny and contest the claim of the appellants. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to the pleadings and admissions of the respondent. In plaint paragraphs Nos. 4 and 5 the plaintiffs have pleaded the quantity of the consignment, the particulars of the railway receipts, invoice and wagon numbers. They have also pleaded that the consignment was booked at the 'railway Risk'. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to the pleadings and admissions of the respondent. In plaint paragraphs Nos. 4 and 5 the plaintiffs have pleaded the quantity of the consignment, the particulars of the railway receipts, invoice and wagon numbers. They have also pleaded that the consignment was booked at the 'railway Risk'. In para No. 6 they have pleaded the shortage. The respondent in paragraphs Nos. 4, 5 and 6 has not disputed the particulars of the booking pleaded in para 4 of the plaint, and in reply to paras Nos. 5 and 6 it has only submitted that the matter is still under enquiry. This, according to the counsel for the appellants, amounts to nothing but an admission of the defendant-respondent under order 8, Rules 3 and 5, C. P. C. ( 7 ) AS against admissions of the respondent, it was not for the appellants to have proved the railway receipt and its contents when the booking particulars pleaded are admitted. For the particulars in Ex. P-2, the respondent contends that it is without prejudice, to their right to deny, and cannot be accepted in view, of the facts that no one has been examined by them to deny as against the version of Ramanuj Tiwari (P. W. I ). Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that Ramanuj Tiwari (P. W. 1)has admitted in cross-examination that he was not present at the place of booking, Kekeloor Railway Station. His version cannot be believed on the point of shortage. But it is to be noted that the particulars of booking have nut been specifically denied by the respondent. Thus, they will be deemed to have been admitted under Order 8, Rules 3 and 5, C. P. C. This fact has been ignored by the trial Court while deciding the suit. ( 8 ) UNDER Rule 3 of Order 8, C. P. C. denial is to be specific. It shall not be sufficient, for a defendant in his written statement, to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth except damages. ( 8 ) UNDER Rule 3 of Order 8, C. P. C. denial is to be specific. It shall not be sufficient, for a defendant in his written statement, to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth except damages. Similarly, according to Rule 5 of Order 8, C. P. C. , every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability. A defendant can either admit or deny the several allegations made in the plaint. If he decides to deny any such allegations, he must do so clearly and explicitly. A vague or evasive reply by the defendant cannot be considered to be a denial of fact alleged by the plaintiff. The denial should be definite and unambiguous. In this case the denial of the defendant, not being definite and unambiguous, will be deemed to be admitted. The facts admitted need not be proved. Merely because, the Court framed issues on the point, the contention of the respondent cannot be accepted that the admissions cannot be taken into considerations. ( 9 ) SO far as the issue of earlier suit (Civil Suit No. 37-B/82) filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Sakti is concerned, the trial Court has itself found that the respondent has failed to prove the same. ( 10 ) IN certificate (Ex. P-2) the Railway has assessed the shortage. It is also to be noted that a notice under Section 78-B of the Indian Railway's Act and Section 80, C P. C. was also served, which contains the price of the goods claimed and the particulars of the assessment, which was received by the respondent on 30-9-1988 and also separate notice (Ex. P-4) under Section 80, G. P. C. was also received by the respondent as per acknowledgement ex. P-5. Further, a notice (Ex. P-6) was also received by the respondent by ex. P-7. It is also to be noted that in para 7 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have pleaded the shortage and damages. In reply to it, there is no specific denial in para 7 of the written statement, filed by the defendant-respondent. P-5. Further, a notice (Ex. P-6) was also received by the respondent by ex. P-7. It is also to be noted that in para 7 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have pleaded the shortage and damages. In reply to it, there is no specific denial in para 7 of the written statement, filed by the defendant-respondent. The documents Ex. P-l and Ex. P-7 have not been rebutted by the respondent. I hold that to this extent only, the facts pleaded not having been denied specifically will be deemed to have been admitted. ( 11 ) IN the argument, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the consignment was sent in a defective packing. For proving shortage in delivery, burden lies on the plaintiffs to show that the loss was due to misconduct or negligence of the Railways. For this, he has relied on the case of K. R. Sarda and Co. v. Union oj India, AIR 1968 MP 199 . Here it is to be noted that in the written, statement no such fact has been pleaded by the defendant. It is also to be noted that the consignment was booked at the 'railway Risk', which fact has been admitted in the written statement. In this case, the damages cannot be attributed to defective packing because it was a wagon loaded, full wagon was loaded and shortage was found on taking the delivery at the destination. In sach cases, primary onus is of a bailee to show that he has taken as much care of the goods as a man of ordinary prudence would have taken in the case of his own goods, must be discharged by the Railway administration for denying the relief to the plaintiffs. Under section 106 of the Evidence Act, the special facts and circumstances under which the consignment was handled being known to the Railway administration, it was for them to place the material before the Court for forming its opinion on the question whether it had taken as much care of the goods as was required of them. For this, 1 am fortified with the decision of this court in Thayerchand Thakerse v. Union of India, [1965 MPLJ (SN) 109]. For this, 1 am fortified with the decision of this court in Thayerchand Thakerse v. Union of India, [1965 MPLJ (SN) 109]. Also in the case of Union of India v. Baboolal, [1972 JU (SNj 91], Raina, J. has held that when the Railway administration adduced no evidence to show how the consignment was dealt with while in its possession, the inference would be that there was negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway administration. In this case also nothing has been placed on record. No evidence has been led by the Railway and I presume that the misconduct was on the part of Railway in dealing with the consignment in transit. ( 12 ) HOWEVER, the main contention raised by the counsel for the Railway is that the burden to prove the market rate and value of the goods found short and damages and also the interest was on the plaintiffs-appellants, which they have utterly failed to prove. The value claimed in para 8 of the plaint has been specifically denied in para 8 of the written statement. This contention of the respondent seems to have force. On going through the written statement, I find that this fact has been specifically denied by the defendant-respondent. In the shortage certificate Ex. P-2, the value has not been assessed except the shortage and percentage of damages to the goods. On the contrary, warfage charge of 25 bags amounting to Rs. 4488,40 P. has been foregone by the respondent. The witness examined by the plaintiffs shri Ramanuj Tiwari (P. W. 1) has no personal knowledge. He has taken over charge of his duties at Bilaspur in April, 1984, whereas the consignment and loss is of June, 1980. In para 6 of his cross-examination, he admits that the rate of Dhanbeej, so also the rate of interest have been mentioned in the record of the plaintiffs, which they have not produced and he has no personal knowledge except the record. No other evidence on the point was led by the plaintiffs-appellants. They cannot forget that the weakness of the defendant-respondent for this point cannot be taken note of as the burden to prove the rate of Dhanbeej and the rate of interest was on the plaintiffs, which they have utterly failed to prove, which results nothing but in the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants atleast on this point. They cannot forget that the weakness of the defendant-respondent for this point cannot be taken note of as the burden to prove the rate of Dhanbeej and the rate of interest was on the plaintiffs, which they have utterly failed to prove, which results nothing but in the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants atleast on this point. ( 13 ) THE other contention has been casually raised by the counsel for the respondent, relying on the case of Karam Singh v. Ram Rachhpal Singh, j AIR 1977 Handp 28] that the plaint is not signed and verified by the person authorised. It is not so. The plaint is signed and verified by the Secretary, m. P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. , Bhopal, and the District marketing Officer, who were authorised persons. It bears signatures of both the plaintiffs. However, the signatures of the counsel for the plaintiffs at the end is meaningless. So, this contention also has no force. The ruling relied in this case is not applicable. The pleading of the plaintiffs that the consignment was booked by them is not specifically denied. It cannot, therefore, be said as contended in arguments by the counsel for the respondent that the plaintiffs-appellants were not authorised to file the suit. ( 14 ) IN view of the fact that the appellants have failed to prove their claim, the appeal has no merit. It is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee as per schedule, if certified. Appeal dismissed. .