Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. These two appeals were heard analogous because common questions of law and fact are involved, except to the extent of monetary claim in the aforesaid two appeals, and therefore, this common judgment shall dispose of both the appeals. 2. The Union of India, through the General Manager, South Indian Railway, is the appellant in both the appeals. In Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 1998, the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal passed on 4th November, 1997 has been challenged. By the aforesaid order, the Railway Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 1,77,219.90, including litigation cost of Rs. 16,110.90. This compensation amount was allowed on the short delivery of the consignment of Steel Bars booked from TISCO. Ltd. in wagon No. 59367 from C.F.D., Tata, for its delivery to Metalex Agencies of TISCO. Ltd. at Cochin under FR No. 328077 dated 3.7.1989. The consignment contained 58.400 MT of Steel Bars of Rs. 4,09,968.00. In Misc. Appeal No. 23/1998, order dated 4.11.1997 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal was challenged. In Claim Application No. Y 2-20-1 of 1992, the Railway Claims Tribunal granted compensation amount of Rs. 1,42,177.00 with litigation cost of Rs. 14,217.00 (Total Rs. 1,56,394.00), for short delivery of consignment of Steel Rounds and Grill Bars of TISCO. Limited kept in four Wagons from C.F. Tata to Cochin for delivery to the same Matalex Agency of TISCO at Cochin in Wagon No. 700 NR containing a consignment of 45.100 MT, valued at Rs. 2,90,669.50 booked under RR No. 328464 on 12th July 1989. 3. It was submitted before me by the appellants lawyer that the concerned consignments were loaded on the private siding of TISCO and the loading was not supervised by the Railway employees and, hence, the Railways were not responsible for the weight of the consignment. The weight of the consignment was accepted at the risk of the consigner and, therefore, the Railways will not be responsible for any short delivery because it was not aware of the actual weight. Moreover, the Wagon was directed from the prescribed route, perhaps, by the act of the consigner or the consignee, and hence, the Railways was not responsible for any damage or looting of the concerned consignment. Moreover, the Railway Police seized some parts of the consignment at Banglore and it also seized the R. Rs. Moreover, the Wagon was directed from the prescribed route, perhaps, by the act of the consigner or the consignee, and hence, the Railways was not responsible for any damage or looting of the concerned consignment. Moreover, the Railway Police seized some parts of the consignment at Banglore and it also seized the R. Rs. concerned at Banglore Office of TISCO and this indicated that the Wagon was diverted from the destined route and, perhaps, pilferage was committed by the consigner or the consignee. Besides the same, short delivery was granted by the-Notary Public of Banglore, without any authority from the Court which ordered the release and without any authority from the Railway Administration. The claimant-respondent had earlier based its claim at the original value of the consignment, but later the claimant reduced the claim by value of the delivered goods. 4. However, it was admitted by the appellants through the W.S. that the concerned consignment in the cases concerned were, of course, entrusted to the Railways for carriage, even if loaded at the private siding. In this connection, Sec. 64 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as the Act), has laid down that the Railway Administration shall grant a receipt for the consignment entrusted to it for carriage on the completion of such loading and on the acceptance of consignment by it sec. 65(2) of the Act shall be prima facie proof of weight and the number of packages mentioned in the consignment. Of course, it has been stated in the aforesaid section that if the loading is not checked by the Railway servant, the consigner or the consignee shall be duty-bound to prove the weight of the consignment. sec. 66 of the Act has laid down that the owner or a person having charge of any goods which are brought upon the Railways for carriage, shall deliver a statement in writing on demand by the Railway servant containing particulars of goods as would enable the Railway servant to determine the rate for such carriage. sec. 66(2) of the Act has further laid down that if the owner of the goods refuses to give such statement, the Railway servant shall be entitled to charge highest rate for any class of such goods or even refuse to accept the goods for carriage. sec. 66(2) of the Act has further laid down that if the owner of the goods refuses to give such statement, the Railway servant shall be entitled to charge highest rate for any class of such goods or even refuse to accept the goods for carriage. There are other conditions and requirements as mentioned in Sections (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the aforesaid section. So, it is apparent that the Railway authorities who accepted the consignment under reference must have damaged proper statement from the consigner for acceptance of the goods for carriage. Even though the goods were loaded in private siding of the consigner, still the Railways must have demanded and must have received all the statements and particulars to be furnished by the consigner before the Railways would accept the consignment for transit through its routes. The very fact that the Railway receipt was issued, indicates that all the required particulars and statements must have been furnished by the consigner. Besides the same, it was still admitted that the freight for the consignment was charged for the weight given by the consigner. So impliedly, the Railways accepted the weight of the consignment, as given by the consigner. The endorsement of the consigner or the consignee in the Railway receipt would not absolve the Railway from its liability of short delivery which will occur during transit. This is so because sec. 93 of the Act has clearly laid down that the Railway Administration shall be responsible for loss, destruction damages of deterioration in transit of any consignment, except under certain conditions, as listed from (a) to (1) of the aforesaid section. In spite of these contingencies or exigencies arising as listed therein, the Railway Administration has not been absolved of its liabilities unless the Railway Administration proves that it has used reasonable foresight and care in the carriage of goods. In the instant case, the consignment did not reach its destination. Admittedly, the Railway Police had seized certain parts of the concerned consignment at Banglore and it had reported seizure to the Area Magistrate (M.M.). It was alleged by the appellants that the diversion of the Wagon was done by the consigner or the consignee themselves and this allegation was perhaps supported by the fact that the original R.Rs. were seized by the Railway Police. It was alleged by the appellants that the diversion of the Wagon was done by the consigner or the consignee themselves and this allegation was perhaps supported by the fact that the original R.Rs. were seized by the Railway Police. But, this contention of the appellants is just by way of defence of the negligence of the Railways. There was no seizure list on the record of this case to suggest that the original R.Rs. were also seized from the Banglore Office of the consigner. Normally, R.Rs. are surrendered when the delivery of goods is taken. So there is no question of the original R.Rs. to be in possession of the consigner or the consignee. Naturally, therefore, the photo copy of the R.R. has been filed. sec. 76 of the Act has clearly laid down that the Railway Administration shall deliver the goods on surrender of the Railway receipt. I have already stated above that there is no seizure list on the record to suggest that the original R.Rs. were seized by the Railway Police from the Banglore office of the consigner. So the allegation that the Railway Wagon was diverted by the consigner or the consignee is not tenable or acceptable. If at all there was any criminal act committed upon the concerned Wagon for which the Police had registered a case, it would amount to negligence on the part of the Railway employees and its Administration. It was for the Railway Administration to prevent any pilferage or theft of looting of the Wagon. The Railway Police is part of the Railway Administration and, therefore, it was the responsibility of the Railways to inquire as to how the Wagon got diverted from its prescribed route. In all circumstances, therefore, it was the responsibility and liability of the Railway Administration to prevent looting or pilferage of the said Wagon, containing the concerned consignment. 5. So far as the short delivery is concerned, admittedly, some parts of the consignment were seized at Banglore and the same were released to the consigner or the consignee at Banglore on orders from the Metropolitan Magistrate. This short delivery was evidenced by the short Certificate which is tagged with the record of the case. Of course, the Notary Public has signed this short Delivery Certificate and he has also affixed his seal. This short delivery was evidenced by the short Certificate which is tagged with the record of the case. Of course, the Notary Public has signed this short Delivery Certificate and he has also affixed his seal. But, this short delivery certificate cannot be termed as short delivery issued by the notary Public. This is so because I find that there are the signatures of the yard in-charge as also other authority concerned on the Certificate. When the seizure was made by the police, the seized articles must have been kept either in the Railway Yard or somewhere else, but its custody must be under the charge of some Railway employee or the police and certainly not under the charge of the Notary public. So the release order must have been issued to the person who was In-charge of the custody of goods. The signature of the yard in-charge shows that, perhaps, it was the Railway yard. The Railway Police is also under the General Administration of the Railways. So it cannot be said that the Railway Police was an independent identity beyond the control of the Railway Administration. So whatever may be the position of the consignment concerned, it must have been delivered from the person who must be in-charge of the goods on seizure. The signature of the Notary Public and his seal will, therefore, be deemed to be just by way of witnessing the delivery and not by way of independent grant of a short certificate. In all circumstances, therefore, the Railways cannot escape from its liability regarding the short delivery of the consignment concerned. 6. A few more words regarding the actual weight of the consignment would suffice in completing this judgment. It was submitted before me by the appellants lawyer that there are various decisions of the various Courts, including the apex Court, that when the Railways grants a receipt, that the weight of the consignment is to be proved by the consigner, the Railways shall not be liable for the weight given by the consigner at the time of loading, especially when the loading was not supervised by the Railway employees. In this connection, I have already stated above that once the railways charge the consigner the freight on the weight of the consignment given by the consignor, the Railways would accept the weight of the consignment, as given by the consignor by implication. In this connection, I have already stated above that once the railways charge the consigner the freight on the weight of the consignment given by the consignor, the Railways would accept the weight of the consignment, as given by the consignor by implication. In this connection, I am to add that sec. 64 of the Act laid down that every person who entrusts any goods to the Railway Administration for carriage, shall execute a forwarding note in such from as may be specified. Sec. 64(2) of the Act laid down that the consignor shall be responsible for correctness of the particulars furnished by him in the forwarding notes. Sub-sec. (3) of the aforesaid section has further laid down that the consignor shall indemnify the Railway Administration against any damage suffered by it by reason of incorrectness or incompleteness of the particulars in the forwarding notes. So when the Railways had admitted the weight of the consignment and granted receipt for the consignment, it had challenged that particulars of weight given in the forwarding notes, were wrong. I do not think the Railways would be permitted to take a plea that the weight furnished by the consignor was wrong and it was wrong and it was not liable for short delivery. I have already referred to sec. 66 of the Act which has authorised the Railways to demand a statement in writing regarding the particulars of the consignment in order to fix the rate of freight. Admittedly, the freight charged for the the consignment under reference was charged on the rate furnished by the consignor. There was no plea of the Railways in the W.S. that freight was charged at the owners risk rate. So in all circumstances, the Railway Administration had accepted the weight of consignment furnished by the consignor. So I am of the opinion that the Railway Administration cannot escape from the liability of the short delivery or safe and complete delivery of the consignment. The conditions attaching to the loading, whether at private siding or official siding, are conditions of convenience and they cannot be termed as mandatory in order to fasten the entire liability on the consignor for the loss of any part of weight of the consignment. Decisions of Courts in this connection are conflicting and, hence, the decisions rendered in particular cases cannot constitute legal principles to be followed in all cases. Decisions of Courts in this connection are conflicting and, hence, the decisions rendered in particular cases cannot constitute legal principles to be followed in all cases. So under particular facts and circumstances of a case, the Court shall be free to pass independent orders following principles of law, as disclosed by particular provisions of the Act. I have already discussed the relevant provisions of the Railways Act in order to fix the liability for short delivery of the consignment concerned of the case under hand. 7. Before parting with this judgment, I am tempted to refer to the show cause dated 11th July, 1998 filed by the appellant. In the show cause at Paragraph-11 it find mention that railway risk was for calculation of freight as open wagon consignment with L/U condition of booking, booked and loadid at private siding and booking condition not complied. In this connection, I am of the opinion that when already the wagon concerned in which the consignment was loaded was, perhaps, diverted and looted during transit, there was no question of open wagon loading or open wagon unloading. The allegation that booking conditions were net complied with, does not appear to be convincing because the Railways granted receipt and I have already stated that the Railways grant receipts only after taking proper statements from the consignor under the relevant provisions to which I have referred in the preceding Paragraphs. The show cause rather at Paragraphs 8 & 9 indicates that the Railways had issued a letter to the consignor to get delivery from the Railway Police, Banglore, which had seized part of the consignment. Thus, the Railways employees themselves neglected to supervise the delivery in order to ensure as to what was the short delivery. The Railways were, therefore, negligent throughout in safe transit of the consignment as also in its open delivery. In this connection, sec. 97 of the Act is further worth mentioning. This section has laid down that the Railways shall not be liable for any damage etc. to the consignment, which was booked at the owners risk rate, unless it was proved that the damage, etc. occurred on account of negligence of Railways provided that if this short delivery or non-delivery occurs/due to fire or any other accident to the train, the Railways shall not be responsible. to the consignment, which was booked at the owners risk rate, unless it was proved that the damage, etc. occurred on account of negligence of Railways provided that if this short delivery or non-delivery occurs/due to fire or any other accident to the train, the Railways shall not be responsible. But in this case, short delivery occurred not on account of fire or accident to the train. Moreover, in case of looting or pilferage, the Railway Administration has to show that this occurrence was beyond the control of the Railway Administration. The above discussion shows that the Railways did not lead any evidence to show that the looting or the pilferage of the wagon in question occurred, in spite of all diligence or care or foresight exercised by the Railways. So diligence on the part of Railways was apparent. Hence, it cannot be absolved from its liability to the consignor or the consignee on account of short delivery. 8. The impugned order/judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal was further assailed with respect to grant of litigation cost. In this connection, Section 18(3) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 was referred to and it was submitted that the Tribunals power to use the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure was limited to the conditions as listed in the aforesaid Sub-sec. s (a) to (i) and there is no provision for grant of Court in the Sub-sec. (3) of sec. 18. So, the Tribunal was not authorised to grant any litigation cost. But, the learned appellants lawyer has missed to read sec. 18(1) of the said Act. I am setting forth the aforesaid provision verbatim in order to highlight the specific power of the Tribunal in disposing of the claim petition before it: The Claims Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and/or any Rules, the Claims Tribunal shall have powers to regulate its own procedure, including fixing of places and times of its inquiry. The aforesaid wordings in the aforesaid section empowered the Tribunal to regulate its own procedure from conducting, and trying the claims cases before it, and in so doing, the Tribunal shall be guided by the principles of natural justice, Moreover, the Tribunal shall also be guided by other provisions of this Act (Railway Claims Tribunal Act) and the Rules made thereunder. None of the provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder has debarred the Claims Tribunal from granting litigation cost. So if the Tribunal granted the litigation cost, I do not think it was beyond its jurisdiction or that this order was illegal. 9. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that these two appeals have no merit. They are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs of these appeals.