B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE Railways, through the Union of india, is the appellant herein aggrieved against the orders in O. A. No. 50 of 1994 dated 3-5-1996 on the file of the Railway claims Tribunal, Secunderabad. ( 2 ) THE respondent applicant laid a claim for compensation of Rs. 71,930-40 for the short delivery of the goods which have been booked by them as per the R. R. dated 11-9-1993 to be transported from dwarapudi to Gauhathi. According to the respondent, the consignment consisted of 1134 rice bags of 50 kgs. each. However, at the destination point it was found mat there was a short delivery of 192 bags. Hence the claim for the value of the said goods along with freight charges and interest. ( 3 ) THE appellant contested the said claim denying any role by it nor any responsibility as such for such shortage. It was the case of the appellant specifically that the responsibility of loading and also the quantity as such is with the consignor and the Railways have no role at all. Admittedly, the seals were there at the starting point and also at the destination point. It is not the case of the applicant that there is any such loss due to either theft or otherwise. In the circumstances, it was pleaded that the Railways cannot be held liable for such compensation. ( 4 ) DURING the enquiry, the applicant examined one of their witnesses as P. W. I and marked the R. R. and also other documents. However, no evidence is let in by the appellant herein in rebuttal. ( 5 ) ON appreciation of the evidence as let in, the tribunal has allowed the claim for a sum of Rs. 66,912. 00 with interest at 12% per annum from 8-10-1993. ( 6 ) SRI N. Venkateswara Rao, Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri D. Srinivas, standing Counsel for the Railways, strenuously and very ably sought to contend that even though no evidence is let in, the burden is heavy on the applicant to establish negligence on the part of the railways, more so when the seals are in tact at both the points and there being no allegation of any damage due to theft or otherwise. Further it is also the case that it is the responsibility of the consignor to check the quantity of the goods at the time of loading and also unloading and the railways have no role in this regard. ( 7 ) SRI M. V. Suresh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent sought to repel these contentions on the ground that in the absence of any evidence let in on the pleas as raised by the appellant in the tribunal below, it is not open for them to attack the findings in this appeal. Further, once there is a document especially the R. R. , showing the quantity of the goods, for any short supply, it is the Railways, which is liable for compensation. ( 8 ) ON a consideration of these and other submissions by both the Counsel and also on a perusal of the record, there is no dispute as to the fact that the applicant has booked the goods for transport from dwarapudi to Gauhathi. The entries in the r. R. show 1134 bags, each containing 50 kgs. of rice. It is also not disputed that the seals at both the ends were found in tact. However, at the destination point, it was found that there was delivery of only 942 bags thus making a shortage of 192 bags. The only question which remains to be considered is as to the liability for the short delivery. ( 9 ) THERE is no doubt that the responsibility to check and also to crosscheck as to the quantity of the goods is with the consignor both at the time of loading and unloading. The only duty which is cast on the Railways is to assist the consignor in the process of transport and it cannot be extended beyond that. However, the fact remains that the R. R. , which is issued by the railway authorities, shows 1134 bags and there is a short delivery of 192 bags at the destination point. Even though there is a denial of liability and also the responsibility for the same, unfortunately, the appellant did not choose to lead any evidence on their side to rebut the allegations as made by the applicant. Even though there is a denial of liability and also the responsibility for the same, unfortunately, the appellant did not choose to lead any evidence on their side to rebut the allegations as made by the applicant. These nice questions as to the role played by the consignor or their representative vis-a-vis the officials of the railways cannot be properly appreciated in the absence of any evidence from both sides. There is absolutely no explanation as to why the appellant did not choose to examine their officials. As pointed out, as per sub-section (2) of Section 65 of the railways Act, 1989, the railway receipt is a prima facie evidence of the weight and number of packages stated therein. The proviso thereto only contemplates that the burden to prove the weight etc. , would lie on the consignor only in the case where the railway authorities make a proper endorsement or statement on the railway receipt to the effect that there is no check done by the railway authorities as to the weight and other particulars. Admittedly, the railway receipt as issued in this case does not show any such endorsement nor it was the case of the appellant either in the written statement or in the grounds of appeal that there is any such endorsement. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, in the absence of any such plea or endorsement to the said effect and any evidence forthcoming, I do not find any merits in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs.