JUDGMENT P.P. Naolekar, J. 1. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of damages of Rs. 30,730/- with interest and demurrage charges for short delivery of linseed oil and weighment charges of Rs. 165/-. On 23.5.1978, the plaintiff is found to have booked one tank linseed oil from Rajnandgaon, Madhya Pradesh, to Jalandhar City in Punjab vide invoice No. 1, railway receipt No. 220382 in wagon No. E.R.T.P. 61351 at the railway risk rate for the delivery at the destination. On 15.6.1978 the goods reached Jalandhar City. But as there was leakage in the tanker, the plaintiff's agent asked for an open delivery. On 24.6.1978 a book delivery was given to the plaintiff and on 27.6.1978 the goods were weighed and it was found that there was a shortage of 3,250 kg. of linseed oil. The delivery of the goods was given to the plaintiff on 4.7.1978. As per the claim, at the relevant time, at Jalandhar City the rate of linseed oil was Rs. 6.90 per kg. and, therefore, plaintiff had suffered damages of Rs. 22,425/- on account of the short delivery of linseed oil. It was further alleged that as there was no fault on the part of the plaintiff-appellant and the goods were delivered by the Railways late on account of their own fault, the Railways were not entitled to charge demurrage of Rs. 8,125/- and weigh-ment charges of Rs. 165/- and the plaintiff is entitled to refund of this amount from the Railways. 2. As per the defence, there was no leakage and the late delivery was on account of the inaction of the plaintiff himself and, as the plaintiff himself has not taken delivery in time, he is liable to pay demurrage and also the weighment charges. It was further submitted that when the goods were weighed only 274 kg. of oil were found short, but by joining hands with the railway employees the plaintiff secured a shortage certificate for 3,250 kg.; the goods were sold by the plaintiff through Sewakram Oil Mills and the document of Sewakram Oil Mills shows shortage of 274 kg. only and, therefore, the plaintiff's claim for damages of shortage of 3,250 kg. of linseed oil was denied. 3. The trial court found, on the basis of document, Exh. D-1, a letter of Sewakram Oil Mills, showing shortage of 274 kg. only and, therefore, the plaintiff's claim for damages of shortage of 3,250 kg. of linseed oil was denied. 3. The trial court found, on the basis of document, Exh. D-1, a letter of Sewakram Oil Mills, showing shortage of 274 kg. of oil and calculating the damages at the rate of Rs. 6.85 per kg., the damages suffered by the plaintiff was only Rs. 1,877.08 and after deducting commission of one per cent passed a decree for an amount of Rs. 1,858.31 against the defendant and granted interest at the rate of 18.35 per cent on the amount of damages from the date of the suit till realisation. However, the trial court dismissed the claim of the plaintiff for refund of demurrage charges and weighment charges recovered by the defendant from the plaintiff. 4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court has wrongly relied on the document, Exh. D-1, a letter of Sewakram Oil Mills, and the statement of the defendant's witness Inder Singh and came to the conclusion that there was only shortage of 274 kg. of linseed oil, whereas the plaintiff has proved the shortage of 3,250 kg. of oil by producing a certificate issued by the Railways. However, the plaintiff's counsel has not challenged the rate at which the damages were assessed, i.e., at the rate of Rs. 6.85 per kg. 5. Exh. P-2/D-5 is the certificate issued by the Railways showing shortage of 3,250 kg. of linseed oil. Therefore, unless and until it is proved by positive evidence that the certificate issued by the defendant was erroneous or that it was obtained by fraud, the plaintiff shall be entitled to have a decree for damages of the short delivery as given in the certificate. The goods were booked at the railway risk and, therefore, it was necessary for the Railways to have delivered the exact quantity of goods that was booked with them. To prove that there was only shortage of 274 kg. of oil, the defendant has examined Inder Singh, DW 1, who was assigned the task of making an inquiry of the real shortage of goods. He has stated that he approached the shop of Sewakram Oil Mills from where he has collected the letter, Exh. D-1, wherein the quantity of oil received by Sewakram Oil Mills has been mentioned. of oil, the defendant has examined Inder Singh, DW 1, who was assigned the task of making an inquiry of the real shortage of goods. He has stated that he approached the shop of Sewakram Oil Mills from where he has collected the letter, Exh. D-1, wherein the quantity of oil received by Sewakram Oil Mills has been mentioned. This witness has further stated that the shortage certificate was issued after due verification and the certificate is evidence of short delivery of goods and he has not made any inquiries regarding the falsity or otherwise of the shortage certificate. His report of shortage of 274 kg. is based on document, Exh. D-1, i.e., the letter issued by Sewakram Oil Mills. He has not recorded the statement of any partner of the Sewakram Oil Mills nor he knew from before Chironjilal. He does not know any partner of Sewakram Oil Mills. Although he has seen page 54 of the stock register of the Sewakram Oil Mills, but he has not taken a copy of it. The statement of this witness clearly shows that his evidence as to the shortage of 274 kg. is based on the document issued by Sewakram Oil Mills. It has also been made absolutely clear by this witness that he has not obtained a copy of the stock register. No doubt, the mode of proof of a document once accepted without any objection at the time of the receipt of that document, in evidence the same cannot be subsequently challenged in the same proceedings or in an appeal. But this principle shall not apply if the document itself is inadmissible in evidence; as a primary evidence or as a secondary evidence. Normally, a fact has to be proved by production of a primary evidence and in the absence of a primary evidence, by a secondary evidence. Here, in this case, there is nothing on record to show that the defendant has taken any steps for production of a primary evidence, i.e., the stock register of Sewakram Oil Mills. Under the circumstances, it has to be seen whether the document, Exh. D-1, could be received as a secondary evidence. In this connection, it may be seen that the defendant's witness Inder Singh has made a categorical statement that Exh. Under the circumstances, it has to be seen whether the document, Exh. D-1, could be received as a secondary evidence. In this connection, it may be seen that the defendant's witness Inder Singh has made a categorical statement that Exh. D-l is not a copy of the stock register and as such this document is inadmissible as a secondary evidence. 6. The trial court has completely overlooked the fact that Exh. D-1 is neither a primary evidence nor a secondary evidence and as such cannot be relied upon, nor any weight could be given to such a document. Apart from the question of admitting the document, Exh. D-1, in evidence, a bare reading of this document would clearly indicate that it is not a document in respect of the goods booked by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's goods were booked under R.R. No. 220382 whereas in this document there is reference to R.R. No. 230382. The document, Exh. D-1, is signed. The signatory to this document has not been examined by the defendant. The defendant's witness does not know Chironjilal nor there is any foundation laid that he knew the signatures of Chironjilal. From the evidence of Inder Singh, at the most, it could be said that somebody, calling himself to be a partner of Sewakram Oil Mills, has given him the document, Exh. D-1. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, i.e., the R.R. No. of this consignment is different and the signatory to the document has not been examined nor the signatory was known to the witness of the defendant, ho reliance can be placed on this document, Exh. D-1, which is sheet-anchor of the defendant's case of short delivery of only 274 kg. of linseed oil and not 3,250 kg. as shown in the shortage certificate issued by the Railways and hence the trial court erred in holding that there was only shortage of 274 kg. and not 3,250 kg. of linseed oil. 8. On an overall appreciation of evidence on record I hold that there was a shortage of 3,250 kg. of linseed oil and the plaintiff is entitled to have damages from the defendant at the rate of Rs. 6.85 per kg., i.e., Rs. 22,262.50 and deducting commission at the rate of one per cent from this amount, i.e., Rs. 222.62, the damages come to Rs. 22,040/-. of linseed oil and the plaintiff is entitled to have damages from the defendant at the rate of Rs. 6.85 per kg., i.e., Rs. 22,262.50 and deducting commission at the rate of one per cent from this amount, i.e., Rs. 222.62, the damages come to Rs. 22,040/-. On this amount the plaintiff-appellant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 18.35 per cent from the date of institution of the suit till realisation. As regards demurrage charges, I hold that the plaintiff-appellant failed to prove as to why the delivery of goods has not been taken by him immediately after the weighment has been made on 27.6.1978, nor it has been shown that the plaintiff was not in a position to take delivery of the goods on 15.6.1978 when the goods reached Jalandhar City nor that why book delivery was taken by him on 24.6.1978. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for refund of demurrage charges was rightly disallowed by the trial court. But the plaintiff shall be entitled to Rs. 165/- taken as weighment charges by the defendant, as the goods have been booked at the risk of the Railways and it was necessary for the Railways to deliver the goods intact. The plaintiff was well within his rights to ask for weighment when he saw the leakage in the tanker and when after weighment of the goods shortage was found by the Railways, the plaintiff is not liable to pay weighment charges because he was fully justified in asking the Railways to weigh the goods booked by him. The fact of shortage of goods is proved by the shortage certificate issued by the Railways. As there was justification in asking for weighment before delivery is taken by the plaintiff, the Railways is not justified in charging Rs. 165/- as weighment charges. 9. As a result thereof, the appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs and the decree of the trial court is modified by granting a decree to the plaintiff for Rs. 22,040/- as damages with interest thereon at the rate of 18.35 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation and refund of Rs. 165/- charged as weighment charges.