JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. - This appeal under section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been preferred by the Union of India, through the General Manager South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Calcutta against the impugned Judgment and award dated 10.1.1996, whereby a sum of Rs. 2,63,515.98 paise was held payable by them to the Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd., Jamshedpur. 2. According to the claimant-respondent herein a consignment having 22.542 metric ton of steel G.C. sheets (H.R. sheets) was booked on 21/22.2.1987 under R.R. No. 366503 from Tatanagar to Shibpurchar under Railway risk, which was expected to be delivered within one month, but the same was not delivered. The value of the materials was Rs. 2,63,515.98 paise. 3. Although with effect from 8.11.1989 the Railway Claims Tribunal came into existence under the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, which was competent to entertain and decide any claim for compensation against railways under Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, but originally, on 16.2.1990, Money Suit No. 28 of 1990 was filed on behalf of the Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. against the South Eastern Railway in the court of First Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur. 4. The order sheet of the said suit reveals that after having found that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court on or. after 1.1.1990 was barred and the claim for compensation against the railways could not have been entertained, the case was transferred to the Patna Bench of the Railways Claims Tribunal, where it was registered as Case No. 35-1-9. On 15.1.1991 the parties appeared before the tribunal and 20tlMarch, 1991 was fixed for settlement of issues. However, on 20.3.1991 the claimant was directed to serve a copy of the plain on the other side and the railways was directed to file written statement by the next date, which was fixed on 24.4.1991 However, the date for filing the writter statement went on being extended and ultimately on 10.1.1996 written statement on behalf of Union of India, representing South Eastern railway was filed with a liberty to file additional written statement, if required. 5. The order sheet dated 10.1.1996 shows that issues were framed on the same day, which stands incorporated in paragraph no.3 of the impugned Judgment and simultaneously the Judgment was delivered directing the railways to pay a sum of Rs. 5. The order sheet dated 10.1.1996 shows that issues were framed on the same day, which stands incorporated in paragraph no.3 of the impugned Judgment and simultaneously the Judgment was delivered directing the railways to pay a sum of Rs. 2,63,515.98 paise to the claimant within 90 days, failing which interest at the rate of 12% per annum was also to be paid. 6. It is apparent that without holding any complete enquiry and giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence if any, the impugned award was given by the tribunal. 7. In my view, unless the railways admitted non-delivery of the goods on account of their fault or the applicant- claimant proved it, the railways would not have been held responsible for paying compensation. 8. I have, therefore, no option, but to set aside the impugned Judgment and award and remit the matter to the tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law, after giving the parties an opportunity for adducing evidence, if any. 9. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid direction. Let the records be sent down forthwith.