Judgment :- Liability of the railway administration for the alleged damage in transit is the short question for consideration in this second appeal filed by the plaintiff. Both the courts dismissed the suit holding that burden of proving negligence is on the plaintiff and he did not discharge the burden. Contention is that the burden was wrongly cast. 2. Appellant is the consignee. The consignment of 440 bags of M.S. wire nails was dispatched under Ext.B1 railway receipt from Tatanagar to Ernakulam goods station on 31-8-1977. It reached destination in time on 25-9-1977.127 bags were found drenched in water and portion of the contents rusted. Delivery was taken after assessment of damages. Rs.7, 992.87 is the claim. Actual damages assessed by court after mitigation of resale value is Rs.S, 246.38. 3. Consignment was dispatched on payment of railway risk rate under S.74. Waggon was allotted on the application of the consignor who loaded in his sidings without any supervision from the railway staff. It was the sealed waggon, which was entrusted for carriage. Quality and quantity were entered in ExtB1 only on the information conveyed by the consignor. There is no short delivery or delay causing damage. The only item of negligence alleged is leakage of the waggon wMch resulted in entry of rainwater, which caused rusting. The witnesses examined are only Pws.1 and Dw.1. Pws.1 (plaintiff) could onlysaythat 127 bags were found wet and rusted at the time of delivery. He does not know the conditions of goods at the time of dispatch. Dw.1 said that at the time of despatch there was no occasion to ascertain whether the consignment was wet or rusted. Consignor or his employees were not examined. An attempt made in that respect was not pursued. It is not known whether the waggon was leaky at the time of loading. 4. Dismissal of the suit was on the basis of the decision in Union of India v. C.S. Rai (AIR 1973 Pat. 244) rendered under S.73 of the Indian Railways Act holding that when it is not shown by the consignor that a defective or leaky waggon was supplied at the dispatching station and it was merely asserted by him that when goods reached destination the waggon was leaking badly, it would be presumed that the waggon supplied was in good condition. Merely because it was found leaking at destination. Merely because it was found leaking at destination. No inference as to negligence of railway or misconduct of its employees could be drawn to arrive at the liability of the railway. Though the counsel said that the above decision was dissented from by the same Court in Kapildeov. Raghunath (AIR 1978 Pat. 213), it was only distinguished on facts saying that the principle is not applicable when the consignor handed over the goods to the railway and it has been loaded by the railway. Responsibility in such a case was on the railway to check up the goods. As in C.S. Rai's case (AIR 1973 Pat. 244), in the present case also the consignor himself loaded and sealed the goods in the waggon allotted to him at his request. S.58(6) of the Indian Railways Act shows that verification by the railway to ascertain the description of the goods will be at its risk. 5. It is true that except in the nine clases of exempted cases provided in S.73 the railway shall be responsible for the loss etc. in transit arising from any cause and even in the exempted cases the railway shall not be relieved unless it further proves that it has used reasonable foresight and care in carriage. Act or omission or negligene of the consignor or consignee or their agents or servants is one of the exempted cases and that alone is alleged in this case. Prior to the amendment of 1961, the responsibility of the railway administration with respect to loss etc. of goods entrusted for carriage was that of a bailee only. The amendment made the liability as of a common carrier or an insurer. Responsibility of the railway as carrier is absolute. That means even in a case where loss or damage is proved to have arisen for any omission or negligence of the consignor, the railway administration will not be relieved unless it further proves use of reasonable foresight and care. That is the effect of the decisions in Shiv Saran Dass v. Union of India (AIR 1970 Delhi 261) K.R. Rajamanickam v. Union of India (AIR 1974 Mad. 375), Punjab National Bank v. Beniprasad (AIR 1981 M.P. 95) and Chabildas Manikdas & Bros. v. Union of India (AIR 1980 A.P. 78) cited before me. That is the effect of the decisions in Shiv Saran Dass v. Union of India (AIR 1970 Delhi 261) K.R. Rajamanickam v. Union of India (AIR 1974 Mad. 375), Punjab National Bank v. Beniprasad (AIR 1981 M.P. 95) and Chabildas Manikdas & Bros. v. Union of India (AIR 1980 A.P. 78) cited before me. The responsibility of the railway as carrier was considered in the decision in Babu Oil & Flour Mills v. Union of India (1980 KLT116) also. 6. But when the animals or goods were tendered to be carried and carried at owner's risk rate, then in spite of S.73 the railway administration shall not be responsible except upon proof that loss etc. was due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the railway administration or of any of its servants (Union of India v. Universal Traders Corporation (1983 KLT 146). But the case in hand wiSS not come under that provision because the railway risk rate was selected to be paid in writing and paid. But in this case, there is no allegation of any negligence on the part of the railway as the cause of the damage except the leaky condition of the waggon. The waggon was selected by the consignor who had the option to reject it if it was leaky. There is no evidence that it was leaky then. If so, the mere assertion of the appellant who knew its condition only at the time of delivery at destination is not sufficient and it has to be presumed that the waggon was in good condition when it was supplied. Delivery was in time and seals were in tact. There was not short delivery also. If so, even if it is taken for granted that leakage occurred during transit due to rain by natural causes, that cannot be said to be due to lack of foresight and care on the part of the railway. Merely because it was found leaky at destination, no inference as to negligence of railway or its employees could be drawn to arrive at the liability of the railway. 7. When goods are booked by the consignor and the information given by the consignor is accepted as correct for the purpose of charging freight, there is no admission on the part of the railway regarding the quality or quantity of the goods. 7. When goods are booked by the consignor and the information given by the consignor is accepted as correct for the purpose of charging freight, there is no admission on the part of the railway regarding the quality or quantity of the goods. Therefore, there is no admission that the description of the goods as furnished by the consignor is correct. In the absence of independent evidence regarding quality of the goods as shown in Ext.B1 railway receipt, it cannot be said that quality deteriorated in transmit. It is for the consignor or consignee to adduce such evidence as they are facts within their special Knowledge. (HariSao v. State of Bihar (AIR 1970 SC 843), Union of India v. Cuttack Cycle Supply & Co. (AIR 1965 Orissa 4) and Union of India v.Aluminium Industries Ltd. (AIR 1987 Orissa 149). There is no such evidence in this case. For these reasons, it cannot be said that the appellant succeeded in establishing that there was deterioration in the quality of goods in transit. If that be the case, for that reason alone, there is no burden on the railway to prove that proper care was taken. No interference is required in second appeal. Second appeal is dismissed. No costs.