JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. appeal under section 22 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 11.2.1991 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal allowed the application (suit) filed by the respondent and held that it was entitled to get Rs. 11646/- from the appellants. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 3. Respondent filed a civil suit in the Court of District Judge, Bikaner claiming a sum of Rs. 30,839/- for short delivery of 39.38 MT coal in the consignment of steam coal weighing 168.4 MT booked from Bachhra to Bikaner vide RR No. 220291 dated 15.7.1983. On constitution of Railway Claims Tribunal, the suit was transferred to the Tribunal. Appellants filed written statement denying short delivery of coal. The Tribunal framed the following issues: "Issue No. 1 - Whether the coal was short delivered due to negligence of the respondent railway administration and the applicant is entitled to get Rs. 19910.85 as cost of short delivered coal Issue No. 2 - Whether the applicant is entitled to get interest @ 12.5% per annum and Rs. 200/- as cost of notice Issue No. 3 - Whether the suit is time barred Issue No. 4 - Whether the suit is not maintainable because the delivery was taken on clear receipt Issue No. 5 - Relief" 4. While deciding Issue No. 1, the Tribunal held that there was no short delivery of coal loaded in broad-gauge wagon (for short 'the B.G. Wagon') Nos. 80737 and 89211. However, the Tribunal held that coal loaded in B.G. Wagon No. 27513 weighing 56.4 MT, which was to be loaded at transhipment point at least in 3 meter-gauge wagon (for short 'the M.G. Wagon') each M.G. Wagon having weighing capacity of 18.8 M.T. (18.8 x 3 = 56.4 M.T.). However, as against 3 M.G. Wagon, Railway administration delivered only 2 M.G. Wagon coal and, therefore, there was short delivery of 18.8 MT coal. It was further clerified that the carrying capacity of the M.G. Wagon was not equivalent to that of S.G. Wagon as the B.G. Wagon's carrying capacity is 56.4 MT coal. However, as against 3 M.G. Wagon, Railway administration delivered only 2 M.G. Wagon coal and, therefore, there was short delivery of 18.8 MT coal. It was further clerified that the carrying capacity of the M.G. Wagon was not equivalent to that of S.G. Wagon as the B.G. Wagon's carrying capacity is 56.4 MT coal. It was not equivalent to that of M.G. Wagon and it has proportionately ⅓rd less carrying capacity than the B.G. Wagon and, therefore, coal loaded in B.G. Wagon No. 27513 was short delivered to the respondent to the extent of 18.8 MT. Therefore, the respondent was held entitled for compensation for short delivery of 18.8 MT coal. The respondent has placed on record the bill issued by Central Coal Fields Ltd. weighing 226.1 MT coal costing to Rs. 48,532.27. On the basis of this, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the cost of coal per MT comes to Rs. 214.65 and thus, cost for short delivery of 18.8 MT coal works out to Rs. 4035.41 rounded to Rs. 4035/-. To this, proportionate Railway freight was added, which comes to Rs. 5395/-. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the coal was booked at the risk of owner- respondent and, therefore, the appellant Railway is liable to pay compensation only on proving that there was negligence/misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration or any of its employees. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that as per section 76(F) of the Indian Railways Act, it is the duty of the Railway Administration to prove that short delivery of consignment is due to fire or any accident to the train. Not only this, the Railway Administration has to prove how the consignment was dealt with throughout the time when it was in its possession or control. In the instant case, delivery of one M.G. Wagon coal has not been given to the respondent by the Railway Administration weighing 18.8 M.T coal, which was formed part of the application (suit consignment). The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on a judgment of Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High court in Union of India and anr. In the instant case, delivery of one M.G. Wagon coal has not been given to the respondent by the Railway Administration weighing 18.8 M.T coal, which was formed part of the application (suit consignment). The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on a judgment of Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High court in Union of India and anr. v. M/s. Batchu Subba Rao & Company, in AIR 1977 A.P. 289 , wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that it is for the Railway Administration to disclose as to how the consignment was dealt with throughout the time it was in its possession or control. If such disclosure has been made and if negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration or any of its servants cannot be fairly inferred from such disclosure, the burden of proving such negligence and misconduct shall lie on the consignor as provided under section 76(F) of the Act but when there is no such disclosure, the burden does not shift to the consignor or the plaintiff. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Brijlal Purshottamdas, AIR 1969 SC 817 , wherein their Lordships held that section 76(F) envisages a disclosure in the form of precise statement as to how the consignment was dealt with by Railway Administration followed by the evidence at the trial in proof of the statement. The section clearly contemplates that on this matter, Railway Administration should submit its evidence first at the trial, and it is only when negligence or misconduct cannot fairly be inferred from such evidence then the burden of proving the negligence or misconduct, shifts to consignor. In the instant case, admittedly, Railway has not produced any such evidence and. therefore, the question of proving negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration or its employees by the respondent, cannot arise and Railway has failed to discharge the burden. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that in the instant case, appellant Railway Administration has not led evidence to show how the consignment was dealt with while it was in possession of the railway and, therefore, the negligence on the part of the Railway Administration can safely be inferred. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that in the instant case, appellant Railway Administration has not led evidence to show how the consignment was dealt with while it was in possession of the railway and, therefore, the negligence on the part of the Railway Administration can safely be inferred. The Tribunal has considered this aspect perspectively and came to the conclusion that due to negligence of Railway Administration, there was short delivery of 18.8 M.T. coal and accordingly, calculated the compensation at Rs. 9130/. The finding arrived at by the Tribunal was based on sound reasons and proper appreciation of evidence produced before it. I find no error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal. 9. So far as issue No. 2 is concerned, it relates to cost of notice which has rightly been decided in favour of the respondent. 10. Issue No. 3 relates to the period of limitation. The Tribunal held that the application (suit) was filed within the period of limitation. The Tribunal also held that merely because the delivery was taken on receipt, it cannot be presumed that party taking delivery and finding it short, is estopped from making the claim on account of short delivery merely because the respondent has taken the delivery in clear receipt which precludes him from making a genuine claim for the damages suffered by him on account of short delivery of coal. Having considered the facts placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held the respondent entitled for a sum of Rs. 9130/- as cost of short delivery of 18.8 M.T. coal and Rs. 200/- is the cost of notice and Rs. 1610/- as cost of the suit and Rs. 706/- as court fee and Advocate fee and allowed the claim for Rs. 11646/-. In my considered opinion, no error can be found in the judgment of the Tribunal. 11. No other point was argued. 12. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal, it fails and is accordingly dismissed No order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******