JUDGMENT Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the Union of India as owner of North East Frontier Railway Administration against the judgment and decree dated 2nd January, 1979 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Araria, in Money Suit No.83 of 1973. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for realisation of Rs. 60,995/- from the defendant/appellant on account of short delivery of 1109 kg. of stainless steel to the plaintiff. 2. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is that it has a stainless steel factory located at Sirat Nagar. It is alleged that 62 cases of stainless steel were imported from Japan which reached Calcutta Port in sound condition and thereafter. the consignment was booked from Calcutta Port (Kiderpur Docks) by the clearing Agent of the plaintiff to Jogbani Railways Station under R/R no. 472862 dated 4.9.1970, in a proper and securely packed condition. At the time of delivery at Jogbani Railways Station, there were shortage of 1109 Kg. of stainless steel and, therefore, a certificate of damage and shortage was granted by the Station Master of Jogbani Railway Station in favour of the plaintiff on 27.10.70. It is alleged that the said shortage occurred during transit when the consignment was under the care and custody of the Railway administration and the shortage was due to gross negligence, misconduct and carelessness of the Railway servant. The plaintiff, thus, has claimed compensation at the prevalent market rate of Rs. 55/- per Kg. Notice under section 78 of the Indian Railways Act and section 80 C.P.C. were validly served on the Railway authorities. 3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Union of India-defendant-appellant, it is contended that the consignment as booked by the sender at the forwarding station without adhering to the prescribed packing condition and the shortage of the goods, if any, was due to non-observance of the packing condition. It is further alleged by the defendant-appellant that the weight shown in the Railway receipt is not an admission of the actual weight said to have been booked and the short certificate, issued at the destination station was without prejudice. The price or quantity of the goods and its market rate are not admitted as the consignment contained foreign steal. 4. The price or quantity of the goods and its market rate are not admitted as the consignment contained foreign steal. 4. In the additional written statement filed on behalf of the defendant-appellant, it is alleged that according to the forwarding note when the forwarding station refused to supply covered wagons the clearing Agent agreed to dispatch the goods in open wagons with escorts and as such the Railway is not responsible for the shortage in question. The defendant-appellant also raised technical objection regarding service of notice and maintainability of the suit which has been answered in favour of the plaintiff by the trial court and the learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the validity of the same in this appeal. 5. On merit, it is contended by Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant that since the weighment was not made at the originating station and the goods were booked at owner's risk and not at Railways's risk, the onus was on the plaintiff to prove that the shortage was due to misconduct and negligence on the part of the Railway administration. In this regard he referred to a decision of this Court In the case of Sobharam Jokhiram, reported in AIR 1970 Patna 182. There cannot be any dispute on the said proposition, but from the trial court judgment I find that certain cases were found entirely empty and some were found tampered with, as a result of which 1109 Kg. stainless steel were delivered short at Jogbani Station and short certificate was granted after comparing the packing (Ext.7) list by the Station Master. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant that under section 74 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 there is no responsibility of the Railways for carriage of animals or goods at owner's risk. It is further submitted that under section 77-C of the said Act, the burden is on the owner to prove negligence in case of defective packing as dealt in various rulings of different High Courts. 7. I do not find any substance in the said submission of Mr. Ojha. It has rightly been held by the trial court that it is not a case of defective packing at the time of booking because all the sixty two cases or packets were originally packed in Japan and again booked in the same condition from Kiderpur Dock. 7. I do not find any substance in the said submission of Mr. Ojha. It has rightly been held by the trial court that it is not a case of defective packing at the time of booking because all the sixty two cases or packets were originally packed in Japan and again booked in the same condition from Kiderpur Dock. The trial court has also rightly held that it is not a case of leakage. On the basis of the evidence the trial court has come to the conclusion that there is sufficient material to show that the consignment was tampered with, which resulted in shortage and, therefore, the natural presumption is that the shortage was due to misconduct and gross negligence on the part of the Railway administration. The plaintiff has been able to establish that there was misconduct and gross negligence on the part of Railway administration and, therefore, the Railways was liable for the loss and shortage of the consignment in suit. This finding of the trial court could not be assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Under such circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and the appeal is dismissed, but without costs.