B. P. DAS, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 22 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 at the behest of the Union of India represented by the General Manager of the South Eastern Railway challenges the order dated 8-7-1994 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar, in O. A. No. 96 of 1990. ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading of the present appeal are: The respondent Steel Authority of India, Branch Sales Officer, Bhubaneswar, which was the applicant before the Tribunal, was the consignee of the consignment of 59. 455 M. T. 25 mm. M. S. rounds bookedfrom Durgapur Steel Exchange Yard to Bhubaneswar. After the consignment was arrived at the destination, i. e. , Bhubaneswar, the consignee-respondent suspected some shortage and requested the railway authorities for weighment of the same before taking delivery. The railway authorities wanted to move the wagon to Talcher station where they had a weigh-bridge and weighment could be done. The consignee did not agree to the proposal of the Railway authorities and after exchange of some correspondence between the parties, the consignee unloaded the consignment and weighed the same by an independent surveyor at its own weigh bridge where it was found that there was shortage of 1. 995 M. T. of M. S. rounds. The consignee-respondent after issuing statutory notice to the railway authorities filed the claim application before the Tribunal claiming an amount of Rs. 13,686. 88 as compensation for the loss of goods. The railway authorities resisted the claim of the claimant respondent by filing a written statement. The claimant examined two witnesses on its side to prove its case, one of them being the surveyor who had issued the certificate after the weighment was done by him. The present appellant, examined one witness in support of its case. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-railway is that the shortage of the consignment is based on no evidence because of the reason that the goods were delivered to the consignee under clear receipt and the consignee took delivery of the respondent after signing the delivery book. If he made certain weighment in a private siding outside the railway premises, that could not be accepted by the railway authorities. If he made certain weighment in a private siding outside the railway premises, that could not be accepted by the railway authorities. That apart, the point highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no proof before the Tribunal as to what was the quantity of consignment booked at the forwarding station except the railway receipt, which cannot be treated as evidence of the quantity of consignment. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Union of India v. Aluminium Industries, AIR 1987 Orissa 162, wherein it was held that the onus was on the plaintiff-company to establish as to what quantities had actually been booked at the forwarding station. The Court came to the conclusion that a shortage certificate was no proof of the fact that the quantum of goods claimed to have been despatched had actually been despatched unless the fact of despatch of the quantum of goods was actually established. Their Lordships while rendering the judgment relied upon the principles laid down in Union of India v. Prakash Ch. Sahu, AIR 1963 Orissa 31. ( 4 ) COMING to the case at hand and looking at the evidence on record, I find that no effort had been made by the respondent to prove that the quantity of goods as claimed by the respondent had actually been booked at the forwarding station. In the absence of that, the impugned award is not sustainable in law. Hence, the same is set aside. In the interest of justice, however, I remand the matter to the learned Tribunal for a fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law. Parties are at liberty to adduce fresh evidence, if they so like. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions and observations. No costs.