L. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) M. A. No. 714 of 1997 has been filed challenging the order passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal in O. A. No. 200 of 1991 and M. A. No. 715 of 1997 has been filed against the order passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal in O. A. No. 201 of 1991. Since both the appeals are interlinked, same were heard together. ( 2 ) IN O. A. No. 200/91 (M. A. No. 714/97) the respondent claimed Rs. 82,100/- towards compensation for the price of 507 pieces of sized Haldu, Bija and Sal timber on the allegations that the consignment of the above quantity of timber was booked from Rupra-Road Railway Station for delivery at Simanchalam Railway Station. Since goods did not reach the destination station within a reasonable time the respondent went away to his native place and only after receipt of notice that the goods had arrived on 21-6-1990, he went to take delivery of the goods and found that the goods offered by the railway did not belong to him. Therefore, he refused to accept the same. Ultimately, the goods were auctioned. The respondent thereafter served notice under Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act and filed the original applications claiming the amount as stated above. O. A. No. 201/91 (M. A. No. 715/97) was filed by the respondent claiming refund of freight amounting to Rs. 17,094. 50 paise for the non-delivery of the aforesaid consignment which is the subject-matter of O. A. No. 201/91. ( 3 ) BOTH the original applications were heard by the Tribunal and there was difference of opinion between the Member (Technical) and the Member (Judicial ). The Member (Technical) framed four issues and held that the respondent has not been able to prove that he had delivered 507 pieces of sized timber of the description stated above in the railway receipt and there is no proof of the said allegation. He further held that in view of Section 77 (2) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 the Railway cannot be burdened with the responsibility in view of the conduct of the respondent in not taking the goods before expiry of the period prescribed. He further held that in view of Section 77 (2) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 the Railway cannot be burdened with the responsibility in view of the conduct of the respondent in not taking the goods before expiry of the period prescribed. The Member (Judicial) framed several issues separately and held that the respondent has proved booking of 507 pieces of sized timber at the forwarding station and was justified in refusing to accept the goods as the goods offered to him were not the goods booked by him. He further held that so far as the value of the goods are concerned, it was assessed at 70% of the claim amount and directed payment of compensation for an amount of Rs. 57,470/- as well as Rs. 3500/- towards auction value and 70% of the freight charges amounting to Rs. 1194/ -. Since there was a difference of opinion between both the Members, the matter was REFERRED TO the Member (Judicial), Railways Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench. The Third member agreed with the view of the Member (Judicial ). Challenging the said composite order, the present appeals have been filed. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant Shri Pal submits that the respondent has not been able to discharge the onus of proving as to what was booked at the forwarding station and what was received at the destination station. Learned counsel has REFERRED TO three decisions reported in AIR 1980 MP 95 (Radheshyam Agarwal v. Union of India); AIR 1987 Ori 152 , (Union of India v. Aluminium Industries Ltd.) and AIR 1988 Orissa 267 (Union of India v. B. D. Jhunjhunwalla ). On the basis of the said decisions learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent having not proved as to what was booked at the forwarding station, question of grant of compensation does not arise. Relying on the decision reported in 1980 MP 95 (supra), learned counsel submitted that the railway receipt is not an admission about description of goods, quantity of goods or quality of goods and therefore on the basis of railway receipt alone it cannot be proved that as to what materials were booked at the forwarding station. He further submitted that the respondent having not taken delivery of the goods within the time the appellant would have no liability in the matter. He further submitted that the respondent having not taken delivery of the goods within the time the appellant would have no liability in the matter. Relying on the decision reported in AIR 1963 Patna 46 (M/s. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. East Keshalpur Colliery), learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent should have taken delivery of goods offered to him and then only he could have raised claim for damages arising out of such wrong delivery of goods. ( 5 ) SHRI Kalyan Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has drawn attention of this Court to several documents and the evidence available on record and submitted that the respondent has clearly proved the materials that were booked at the forwarding station. Attention of the Court has been drawn to Ext. 2 and Ext. 3. Ext. 2 is the T. T. permit granted by the Forest Department of the State of Orissa. Said document indicates that the permit had been granted in respect of 507 pieces of Haldu, Bija and Sal sized timbers and detailed list is attached to the said permit. Ext. 3 is the receipt granted by the railway indicating booking of the said materials at Rupra-Road Railway Station. Railway receipt also shows that the 507 pieces of Haldu, Bija and Sal sized timbers had been loaded. There is also an endorsement with regard to export permit which appears to have been verified by the railway authorities and the said export permit is nothing but Ext. 2. On the basis of the said two documents Shri Patnaik, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the railway receipt not only proves the booking of timber, but also clearly proves that the T. T. permit granted by the Forest Department had been verified and checked by the railway authorities. Respondent in his evidence has also stated that he had booked 507 pieces of sized timber of the description stated above of the quantity of 100 quintals at Rupra-Road Railway Station, for delivery at Simanchalam Railway Station. He has further stated that he had waited for two months for delivery at the destination station. He has further stated that only in March, 1990 he received notice for auction and when he arrived at the railway station he found that the goods were altogether different and therefore he refused to receive the same. He has further stated that he had waited for two months for delivery at the destination station. He has further stated that only in March, 1990 he received notice for auction and when he arrived at the railway station he found that the goods were altogether different and therefore he refused to receive the same. In view of such evidence both oral and documentary, I have no hesitation to hold that the respondent had in fact booked the materials as claimed at the Rupra-road Railway Station. ( 6 ) SO far as the delivery point is concerned, it appears from the evidence of witness No. 1 examined on behalf of the railway administration that the consignment consisted of small pieces of wood and not sized timber. In view of the admission on the part of the railway authorities that at the delivery point materials booked had not been received, in my view the respondent was justified in raising the claim. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there was no material before the Tribunal with regard to value of the goods claimed to have been booked. Attention of this Court has been drawn to an affidavit filed by the respondent before the Tribunal, wherein the respondent has specifically stated the price of goods booked was Rs 82,100/- at the time of booking. Considering the value of the property observation of the Member (Judicial) that the respondent is entitled to 70% of the price claimed cannot be held to be unjustified or illegal. I, therefore, do not find any merit so far as the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned. ( 7 ) SINCE the Tribunal awarded compensation there was no justification to direct payment of Rs. 3500/- with interest @ 12% per annum which was the auction value of the property as well as the freight charges. The respondent claimed that the properties auctioned did not belong to him and therefore question of payment of auction price of Rs. 3500/- in favour of the respondent does not arise. So far as freight charges are concerned, respondent is also not entitled for refund of the same as he has been granted compensation in lieu of price of the goods booked by him. ( 8 ) I, therefore, allow the appeal in-part to the extent that the appellant shall be liable to pay compensation of Rs. So far as freight charges are concerned, respondent is also not entitled for refund of the same as he has been granted compensation in lieu of price of the goods booked by him. ( 8 ) I, therefore, allow the appeal in-part to the extent that the appellant shall be liable to pay compensation of Rs. 57,470/- with interest as directed by Tribunal to the respondent and direction of the Tribunal for payment of Rs. 3500/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 2-11-91 till the date of payment as well as the freight charges amounting to Rs. 1194/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 2-11-91 till the date of payment are set aside. Ordered accordingly.