D. M. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 24-1-1997 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench awarding compensation of Rs. 46,353/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and cost in favour of the respondent for loss caused on account of shortage of goods carried by the railway, the Railways are in appeal. ( 2 ) THE applicant booked 591 quintals of steel Grip Bars under Railway Receipt No. 930/76 dated 22-1-1988 from Tatanagar to Bhubaneswar. At Bhubaneswar, at the time of taking delivery shortage was found to be 5. 2 matric tonnes which the applicant valued at Rs. 74,668. 74 and claimed compensation giving statutory notice under S. 78-B of the Indian Railways Act. It is the case of the claimant that since short delivery was detected because of the cut in four places on the top of one bundle, the applicant asked for weighment and open delivery which the railway refused. The applicant on his own carried on the weighment through private surveyor and found the above shortage. ( 3 ) THE Railway filed written statement. It denied the fact of loading of that quantity (5. 2 M. T.) of goods at Tatanagar. It was specifically pleaded that loading was not supervised by any Railway staff and the weight disclosed by the sender/consigner on the face of the document was accepted and accordingly recorded in the forwarding note. It is further claimed that the book delivery took place on 2-2-1989, consignment was removed on 21-2-1989 anddelivery was given under signature of the claimant. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed :- (i) Does the applicant prove full weight of the goods at the time of booking of wagon No. ER-76187? (ii) Does the respondent prove delivery of the consignment under clear signature on 21-2-1989? (iii) Does the applicant prove cause of loss due to the negligence and misconduct on the part of Railway employees? (iv) Whether the applicant is entitled to the claim of Rs. 74,668. 74 with interest 18% per annum? learned Tribunal accepted the applicant's case and accordingly allowed the claim as indicated above. ( 4 ) MR. B. Pal, learned counsel for the Railway strenuously urged in support of the appeal that the railway receipt (Ext. R-2) admittedly shows that the railway staff accepted the consignment with endorsement 'said to contain'. 74,668. 74 with interest 18% per annum? learned Tribunal accepted the applicant's case and accordingly allowed the claim as indicated above. ( 4 ) MR. B. Pal, learned counsel for the Railway strenuously urged in support of the appeal that the railway receipt (Ext. R-2) admittedly shows that the railway staff accepted the consignment with endorsement 'said to contain'. Relying on the decisions reported in AIR 1950 Nag 85 (Dominion of India v. Firm Museram Kishunprasad Melonigunj, Jubbulpur); AIR 1956 Mad 177 (Peria Valliappa Chettiar v. Rangayya Goundan) and AIR 1987 Ori 152 (Union of India v. Aluminium Industries Ltd.), Mr. Pal submitted that the above decisions have brought out correct position of law that, when Railway receipt shows such endorsement (said to contain) there is no presumption of the fact that whatever the quantity given by the sender was correct and the railway assumed responsibility of the quantity of the goods so declared. Secondly, it was urged that in such situation the applicant has initial burden of proving that at the station of origin he in fact had loaded the exact quantity of the material for carriage. To sustain this point Mr. Pal has relied on some decisions reported in AIR 1980 Madh Pra 95 (Radhesyam Agarwal v. Union of India); (1984) 57 Cut LT 321 (Union of India v. Krishna Stores) and AIR 1970 SC 843 (Hari Sao v. State of Bihar ). ( 5 ) LEARNED Tribunal has taken note of the endorsement in the Railway Receipt (Ext. R/2) that the weighment was witnessed by Railway staff. Mr. Pal submits that once endorsement is made mentioning 'said to contain', there is no presumption that the railway accept the weight of the consignment tendered by the applicant. The learned Tribunal has rightly believed the fact that the weighment was witnessed by the Railway staff relying on the endorsement on the Railway Receipt as well as the admission of the witness for the Railway. This being the fact duly proved, I am not willing to set aside the finding of the Tribunal. The contention of Mr. Pal that there was no weighment in presence of the railway staff cannot be accepted as a fact. ( 6 ) ACCEPTING the oral evidence of the P. Ws. This being the fact duly proved, I am not willing to set aside the finding of the Tribunal. The contention of Mr. Pal that there was no weighment in presence of the railway staff cannot be accepted as a fact. ( 6 ) ACCEPTING the oral evidence of the P. Ws. coupled with endorsement as indicated above in the Railway Receipt and considering that the Railways failed to produce the forwarding note to show from their side what was the weight of the consignment accepted at the time of booking at Tatanagar, the Tribunal rightly held that storage of goods was 5. 2 M. T. and therefore came to conclusion that the loss was Rs. 35,384/- calculated @ Rs. 6920/- per M. T. Learned Tribunal awarded interest @ 12% per annum from 14-4-1989 till 11-11-1991 on the above amount and reached at Rs. 10,969/ -. There is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. ( 7 ) IN the result, the misc. appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Appeal dismissed.