Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. M/s.Metallite Industries Vava within Ahmedabad District booked a consignment to Central Coal Fields Ltd., Kathara within Giridih District to Bermo Railway Station under RR No. 020815 dated 18.12.1985. 2. At the time of taking delivery, consignment was found in tampered condition. Accordingly, on the request open delivery was granted and some goods i.e. 127 pieces of electric bulbs were found in damaged condition, for which shortage certificate was granted by Railway authorities. 3. On 28.2.1986/1.3.1986, a notice under Section 78 (B) of the Indian Railway Act was sent to the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Eastern Railway andwas duly served. 4. A notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also given to the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta on 6.8.1986, which was duly served claiming a sum of Rs. 1587.99 paise. 5. On 9.1.1989 Money Suit No. 1 of 1989 was filed before Munsif Bermo at Tenughat, wherein the National Insurance Company Ltd., defendant no. 2 appeared and filed written statement on 4.9.1989. However, on 23.3.1990 records of Money Suit No. 1 of 1989 was transferred to Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna under the provisions of Section 24 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 . 6. By the impugned order dated 5.12.1990, the tribunal dismissed the suit for the reason that in paragraph 12 of the plaint/claim application, it was stated that consignment in question was insured with defendant no. 2/ opposite party no. 2 and as such the said Insurance Company was also liable to pay the aforesaid loss cf Rs. 1587.99 paise to the plaintiff-applicant and there was no mention that the applicant will not claim or has not claimed and received compensation for the loss, as premium to the Insurance Company was already paid. Consequently, in absence of any such information the suit/claim case was dismissed. 7. Nobody on behalf of Eastern Railways, respondent no. 1 is present. Counsel for the Insurance Company, respondent no. 2 on instruction states that neither the appellant made any claim towards the loss in question, which is said to have been sustained on account of damage caused to the insured goods nor any amount has been paid by the Insurance Company. 8. In such circumstance, I set aside the impugned order and remit the claim case to the tribunal for its disposal on merit and in accordance with law. 9. 8. In such circumstance, I set aside the impugned order and remit the claim case to the tribunal for its disposal on merit and in accordance with law. 9. This appeal is disposed of.