The appellant in this case had filed" a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,380/-from the Union of India by way of compensation for loss sustained due to short delivery of goods. The goods were booked by the defendant No. 2 under Railway Receipt No. 307061 of 17.5.71 at Kalyani Railway Station for carriage to Tinsukia at Railway risk. The consignment consisted of 249 Coils (Bundles) of Galvanised iron wire. It was covered by invoice No. 3. The relevant Railway receipt, invoice etc. were sent by the consignor, defendant No, 2 to the appellant through State Bank of India, which were released on payment. Endorsement was duly male on the Railway receipt to that effect. On arrival of the goods at destination station, 74 bundles were found short. Only 173 bundles could be delivered to the appellant against the said Railway receipt. A short certificate dated 29. 11. 71 was issued by the Chief Goods Clerk of N. P. Railway, Tinsukia confirming the short supply made. 2. The appellant, after service of requisite notice under section 78B of Indian Railways Act, 1890 and under section 80 of the C. P. C., filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,330/-being the value of the goods which the Railways failed to deliver. A number of issues were framed by the trial Court including the following two issues which were issues No. 5 and 6 : (5) Whether there was any negligence on the part of the Railways or its employees in dealing with the suit consignment? (6) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to any compensation? AH the issues except the above two issues, were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Dealing with the aforesaid issues, the learned trial Court held that as the plaintiff failed to examine the person who booked the consignment and did the loading and unloading the negligence of the Railway could not be proved. This conclusion was preceded by an observation that when negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway' administration or its employee is pleaded, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the same. On the basis of the aforesaid finding the suit was dismissed. 3. On appeal, the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh also dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court on the very same ground. On the basis of the aforesaid finding the suit was dismissed. 3. On appeal, the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh also dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court on the very same ground. He, however, relied on Rule 115 of the General Rules of the Indian Railways to arrive at a conclusion that Railway receipt is no evidence of booking of the goods at the booking station and it has to be proved independently. Aggrieved by the findings of both the Courts below in regard to the onus of proof of negligence in the handling of the goods during transit and also the evidentiary value of the Railway receipt, the present appeal has been filed. 4. I have heard Mr. O. N. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr, P. P. Duarah, learned counsel for the Railways. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The legal questions which fall for determination in this appeal are important and deserve careful consideration. I shall first deal with the question relating to the evidentiary value of the Railway receipt. Railway receipt is a document granted by the Railway acknowledging the receipt of goods delivered to it for carriage. It generally contains the quantity, weight, and description etc. of the goods except in cases where it is not possible to verify the same at the time of booking. Such exceptional cases have been specified in the Rules which provide that the quantity etc. need not be specified in the Railway receipt in exceptional circumstances. For instance, we may refer to Rule 145 (1) of the General Rules which provides : "145. Railway receipt -(1) In the case of consignments com­prising a large number of articles loaded by senders which cannot be readily counted by the station staff, the number need not be specified in the railway receipt," One thing is, however, certain that once the goods are delivered to the Railways for carriage and a Railway receipt is given for the same, the Railway is accountable for delivery of the same at the destination station. This position is also made clear by Rule 135 of the General Rules, the relevant portion of which reads : "135. Responsibility of the railway for goods.-The railway administration hereby give public notice. This position is also made clear by Rule 135 of the General Rules, the relevant portion of which reads : "135. Responsibility of the railway for goods.-The railway administration hereby give public notice. (1) that they are not accountable for any articles, unless the same are booked and a receipt for them is given by their clerk or agent; (2) that when the articles are accepted for carriage in accordance with Clause (1) the responsibility of the railways for any loss, damage, destruction, deterioration or non-delivery will be determined under the provisions of sections 73, 74, 75-A, 76, 76-A, 76-B, 76-C, 76-D, 76-E, 76-F, 77, 77-A, 77-B, 77-C and 78 of the Indian Railways Act (See Annexure b) } ..." The Rule, though couched in a negative language, in clear terms declares the accountability of the Railways for articles booked with them for which a receipt is given by their clerks or agents, The nature and limit of the liability will, however, depend on the various provisions of the Act. A Railway receipt is thus a valuable document and is prim a facie proof of receipt and acceptance for carriage by the Railways of the goods described in it. 5. It is a document of title to the goods under section 2(4) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which defines document of title as to include "a bill of lading, dock-warrant, warehouse-keeper's certificate, what finger's certificate, railway receipt, warrant or order for the delivery t of goods and any other document used in the ordinary course of business as proof of the possession or/ control of goods, or authorising or purporting to authorise, either by endorsement or by delivery, the possessor of the document to trans­fer or receive goods thereby represented”. 6. Right to receive the goods represented by a Railway receipt may be transferred by an endorsement. The endorsee of a Railway receipt can take delivery of the goods covered by it and give a complete discharge. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the Railways that in order to prove the booking of the goods described in the Railway receipt it is necessary to produce the person who booked the goods and to adduce other evidence to establish independent of the Railway receipt that the goods described therein were actually so booked or delivered to the Railways for carriage. I am of the clear opinion that a Railway receipt is complete evidence of the fact that the goods specified therein were delivered to the Railways for carriage at the booking station and once the Railway receipt is proved no further evidence is required in that regard. If in a particular case the Railways dispute the genuineness of the Railway receipt or the quantity, weight or description of the goods given therein, it is for the Railways 1i take a Specific plea by making categorical averments to that effect in the Written Statement and prove the same by adducing requisite evidence. In the absence of such pleadings and proof, the Railway receipt will be accepted as evidence of book­ing of the goods described therein and no further evidence is necessary in that regard. 7. The learned counsel for the Railways placed reliance on two decisions of the Orissa High Court in the cases of Union of India vs. Aluminum Industries Ltd. AIR 1987 Orissa 152 and Union of India vs. Jugal Kishore Khandelwal, AIR 1988 Orissa 113 in support of his contention that a Railway receipt does not constitute adm­ission of actual quantity received for carriage. I have carefully considered the aforesaid decisions, I find that these two decisions have no application to the instant case. The facts of those cases were completely different. In Union of India vs. Aluminum Indus­tries Ltd. (supra) the admitted position was that the goods were booked at the own siding of the plaintiff. In the Railway receipt there was an endorsement to the effect that "Sender's weight accepted" The loading was not even done under the supervision of the Railways. Under such circumstances, it was held by the Orissa High Court that the onus was on the plaintiff to prove the actual booking of the goods. Similarly, in Union of India vs. Jugal Kishore Khandelwal (supra) a consignment of Kerosine was booked by the plaintiff by by Railway wagon. The goods were loaded in the wagon by the consignor himself, sealed by him and the sealed wagon was delivered to the Railways for carriage. Similarly, in Union of India vs. Jugal Kishore Khandelwal (supra) a consignment of Kerosine was booked by the plaintiff by by Railway wagon. The goods were loaded in the wagon by the consignor himself, sealed by him and the sealed wagon was delivered to the Railways for carriage. The Railway receipt granted in that case itself contained the endorsement about the quantity of Kerosine oil loaded as only "said to contain/' Under such circumstances, it was held that the Railway receipt was not the admission of the quantity of Kerosiae mentioned therein having been received by the Railways for carriage and that it was for the plaintiff to prove the booking of the actual quantity. The facts of the instant case are completely different. Here the goods were delivered to the Railways, accepted by them and the quantity, weight etc. were all duly verified, and described in the Railway receipt. The aforesaid two decisions, therefore, have no application to the facts of the instant case. 8. The learned first appellate Court placed reliance on Rule 115 of the General Rules in support of the proposition that Railway receipt is no evidence of the delivery of the goods mentioned therein. I find that the reliance is misplaced and based on erroneous reading of the Rule. Rule 115 deals with the right of the Railways to correct charges if the same has not been correctly charged in the Railway receipt and for that purpose it provides that the weight as shown in the Railway receipt or the description of goods furnished by the consignor may not be treated as the admission by the Railway. By this Rule the Railways have retained a right to re-measure, re-weigh, re-classify the goods and re-calculate the rates and other charges at the place of destination. This rule has no relevance for the purpose of determining the evidentiary value of the Railway receipt. This rule evidently is intended to take care of cases where due to a mistake- at the booking station, lesser charge has been calculated. It empowers the Railways to rectify the mistake and for that purpose makes it clear that no admission is conveyed by a Railway receipt that the weight as shown therein has been received or that the description of goods as furnished by the consignor is correct. It empowers the Railways to rectify the mistake and for that purpose makes it clear that no admission is conveyed by a Railway receipt that the weight as shown therein has been received or that the description of goods as furnished by the consignor is correct. In other words, it provides that the statement in the Railway receipt will not act as an estoppel against the Railways in correcting the mistake. The onus, however, is on the Railways to prove the mistake. Another point which may be noticed is that though Rule 115 refers to weight, description and classification and allows re-verification thereof at the destination station there is no reference to quantity therein. The reason is obvious. Railways reserve no right and rightly so to re-count the number of the packets or items which it has counted at the booking station, accepted and acknowledged in the receipt. Accordingly, the findings of the learned Courts below in so far as it relates to the failure of the appellant to prove the booking of the goods is concerned, cannot be sustained. 9. I may now deal with the finding of the Courts below that the plaintiff failed to prove that there was negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway administration or its employees. In my opinion, the learned Courts below committed manifest error of law in reading the law on the subject. The responsibility of the Railway administration as a carrier of goods has been laid down in section 73 of the Act, which provides: "73. General responsibility of a railway administration as a carrier of animals and goods.-Save as otherwise provided in this Act, a railway administration shall be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery. In transit of animals or goods delivered to the administration to be carried by railway, arising from any cause except the following, namely :- (a) act of God; (b) act of war; (c) act of public enemies; (d) arrest, restraint or seizure under legal process; (e), orders or. In transit of animals or goods delivered to the administration to be carried by railway, arising from any cause except the following, namely :- (a) act of God; (b) act of war; (c) act of public enemies; (d) arrest, restraint or seizure under legal process; (e), orders or. restrictions imposed by the Central Government or a State Government or by any officer or authority, subordinate to the Central Government or State Government authorised in this behalf: (f) act or omission or negligence of the consignor or the consignee or the agent or servant of the consignor or (g) the natural deterioration or wastage in bulk or weight due to inherent defect, quality or vice of the goods; (h) latent defects; (i) fire, explosion or any unforeseen risk; Provided that even where such loss] destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery is proved to have arised from any one or more of the aforesaid causes, the Railway administration shall not be relieved of its responsibility for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery unless the Railway administration further proves that it has used reasonable foresight and care in the animals or goods." 10. From a reading of section 73, it is clear that the Railway administration is liable for loss etc. caused to the goods in course of transit except in the circumstances enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) in which cases it is relieved of its responsibility if it can prove that it has used reasonable foresight and cure in the carriage of the animals or goods. It may be observed that section 73, which was replaced for the old section 72 by the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act, 1961, changed the character of the liability of the Railways from that of a bailee in old section 72 to that of an insurer. In order to be absolved from such absolute responsibility, it is the Railway administration who has to prove that the loss etc. have arisen from any of the causes mentioned in section 73 and if that is done then it has further to prove that reasonable foresight and care had been used. The burden, therefore, is squarely on the Railway administration to come under the umbrella of protection of immunity. If that is not done, the Court is entitled to presume negligence on the part of the Railway administration. 11. The burden, therefore, is squarely on the Railway administration to come under the umbrella of protection of immunity. If that is not done, the Court is entitled to presume negligence on the part of the Railway administration. 11. In the instant case, no evidence was adduced by the Railway as required by section 73 of the Act to get itself absolved from the responsibility for the toss caused to the plaintiff. The Railway administration was in the custody of the goods right from the moment it was delivered to it at the booking station upto the point of its delivery or upto the specified period after the arrival of the goods at the destination station. The matter was within the knowledge of the Railways as to how the goods had been dealt with during that period. Besides, in the instant case, the goods were booked in a broad-gauge wagon. There was transshipment on the way and the consignment arrived at the destination station in a meter gauge wagon. in what condition goads were received at the time of transshipment and what happened during the transshipment thereafter was within the knowledge of the Railways. No evidence was adduced by the Railways to show how the goods were handled by it and to satisfy the Court that there was no negligence on its part. 12. The last submission made by the learned counsel for the Railways is that the goods having been booked under L. U. condition the Railway is not responsible for the loss caused to the goods. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and I find it difficult to accept the same. The booking under L. U. condition only means loading and unloading shall be done by the party. If any loss is caused to the goods in course of loading and unloading the Railways may not be responsible for such loss. But that it not the case here. The shortage admittedly had not been occasioned due to any negligence in handling the goods at the time of loading and unloading. It is in no way related to the loading or unloading. As stated earlier, there was transshipment of 4he goods by the Railways in transit where even loading and unloading was done by the agents of the Railways. The shortage admittedly had not been occasioned due to any negligence in handling the goods at the time of loading and unloading. It is in no way related to the loading or unloading. As stated earlier, there was transshipment of 4he goods by the Railways in transit where even loading and unloading was done by the agents of the Railways. Whatever' that may be one thing is certain that because the goods were booked under L. U. condition the Railways cannot be absolved of its responsibility for the safe carriage of the goods. It can only get absolved of the responsibility for the loss caused to the goods in the course of loading and unloading if it can prove that the loss was caused due to negligence of the employees of the parties in course of loading and unloading. That is not the case here and, as such, the submission of the learned counsel on this count is not sustainable. 13. In the result, the judgments of both the Courts below are set aside and the suit is decreed for Rs. 13,380/-with interest @ 6% from the date of filing the suit against the Union of India. 14. This appeal is allowed with costs all throughout.