G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed challenging the order dated 14-12-1995 passed in OA No. 10 of 1993 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad. ( 2 ) THE respondent-Hindustan Sanitary Ware and Industries Limited, Hyderabad laid a claim for compensation from the Railways for short delivery of coal contained in three wagons, out of the full consignment of 10 wagons booked from Bellampally to Sanathnagar on 24-3-1992. The respondent also claimed proportionate refund of railway fare. ( 3 ) THE case of the respondent-claimant was that 10 wagons of coal were booked from Bellampally to Sanathnagar on 24-3-1992 and they reached the destination, out of which three wagons were reached after a lapse of considerable length of time i. e. , on 1-5-1992. Therefore, suspecting that there is some pilferage or illegal transportation of the coal, they sought for re-weighment of the coal, which was refused. Therefore, the delivery was taken and when it was reweigted in the factory premises it was found that there is shortage of coal in three wagons. Therefore the claim was laid. 3. The matter was resisted by the Railways on the ground mat the Railway-authorities did not weight the coal when they received it at Bellampally and that the Singareni Collories have been loading the wagons at their loading point and therefore so long as loading was not done in the presence of the Railway-authorities, they are not responsible for shortage of coal in three wagons. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the respective pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues. " (I) Whether the subject coal consignment suffered any shortage in transit and if so whether the respondent is responsible for the same? (II) Whether there was any negligence on the part of the Railways in the carriage of the goods? (III)WHAT was the nature and value of the coal alleged to have been short delivered? (IV) What relief?" ( 5 ) THE evidence was let in by the parities concerned. In respect of issue No. 1 the Tribunal found that there was shortage of coal. The Tribunal also found that there was abnormal delay in delivery of three wagons, therefore, the respondent-Railways was asked for re-weighment, which it refused. (IV) What relief?" ( 5 ) THE evidence was let in by the parities concerned. In respect of issue No. 1 the Tribunal found that there was shortage of coal. The Tribunal also found that there was abnormal delay in delivery of three wagons, therefore, the respondent-Railways was asked for re-weighment, which it refused. On that ground the Tribunal found fault with the Railways and held that they are responsible for the value of the short delivery of the coal and also proportionate costs. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the application for a sum of Rs. 27,386. 20 ps together with proportionate fare charges of Rs. 6,160. 00, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the order, against which the present appeal has been filed by the Railways. ( 6 ) SRI Gouri Shankar Sanghi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has misdirected itself in coming to the conclusion that the Railways are responsible for the short delivery. He submits that there was no entrustment by the consignor to the Railways after proper weighment and wagons were not weighed in the presence of the railways authorities, in such a situation a Railway receipt was issued stating that the wagons said to contain so much quantity, therefore, the Railways are not responsible for any shortage that would arise. He refers to Section 93, 96, and 97 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 and submits that so long as there was no proper entrustment, Railways are not responsible. He also submits that in the absence of proper acknowledgment by the Railway, it cannot be made responsible for the shortage. He took assistance from the judgment of the Division Bench of Orissa High Court reported in Union of India v. Aluminimum Industries Limited (1) AIR 1987 Orissa 149 ). ( 7 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that shortage was established as a question of fact and consequently respondent-Railways was made liable for payment of shortage of coal and that finding cannot be disturbed by this Court. Further, it is also submitted that when the Railways failed to properly account for the delay in transit, coupled with the refusal to reweigh the consignment, the order of refund cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to law. Further, it is also submitted that when the Railways failed to properly account for the delay in transit, coupled with the refusal to reweigh the consignment, the order of refund cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to law. ( 8 ) THE issue that arises for consideration is whether the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and arbitrary? ( 9 ) IT is not in dispute that the coal was loaded at Singareni site and it was entrusted to Railway at Bellampally and the freight was also collected from the consignor on the basis of the weight declared by the consignor. The contention that the coal was not weighed at Bellampally Railway Station by the Railway authorities, and that the Railways are not responsible for shortage was also considered by the Tribunal and it was found that it is the duty of the Railways to properly explain that they have taken necessary care for transportation of the coal. But on this count, there was no evidence, whatsoever from the Railways. The Tribunal categorically found that since there was abnormal delay from the date of booking till the date of delivery, demand for re-weighment was justified and when it refused it was weighed at the factory site and therefore the Railways are liable for the shortage. Even though the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways strenuously contends that the Railways are not under legal liability to pay the amount for the alleged shortage, in the absence, of any proper evidence, the same cannot be accepted in this case for the simple reason that any wagon booked at Bellampally is expected to reach the destination [hyderabad] within a reasonable time and in the instant case admittedly, there was delay of 39 days, which is abnormal. In such a situation the burden solely lies on the Railways to prove satisfactorily for the delay that caused in the transit and reasons for such delay. No evidence whatsoever has been adduced by the Railways on this aspect except filing the Railway receipt. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly came to the conclusion that failure to render satisfactory explanation for the unreasonable delay caused in the transit, they are liable for the shortage of coal. No evidence whatsoever has been adduced by the Railways on this aspect except filing the Railway receipt. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly came to the conclusion that failure to render satisfactory explanation for the unreasonable delay caused in the transit, they are liable for the shortage of coal. The judgment of the Division Bench of Orissa High Court reported in Aluminum Industries Limited s case (supra), would not be much assistance inasmuch as the delay was not the criteria in that case and coming to the facts in the present case the delay is abnormal and could not be explained properly by the appellant-Railways. Simply because the consignment is at owners risk it cannot be said that the Railways have no responsibility to take care of the consignment entrusted to them. Burden is on them to establish that they have taken reasonable care as expected of a transporter, more especially when there is abnormal delay in transit the responsibility is heavy on them. ( 10 ) I, therefore, do not find that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or irregularity. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this civil miscellaneous appeal, and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.