V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. ( 2 ) THE 1st appellant-Union of India herein is represented by its General Manager, south Central Railways, Secunderabad and the 2nd appellant is the General Manager, south Central Railways, Calcutta. The respondent herein is the applicant, who filed o. A. No. 540 of 1990 on the file of the railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad bench, for payment of compensation of rs. 55,809/- along with interest thereon for the loss said to have been caused due to negligence on the part of the Railway authorities. It is stated that under the Railway receipt No. 352951 dated 27-6-1999, the applicant booked the consignment of 57. 100 metric tonnes of pig iron from bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, to be carried and delivered to the applicant- company at M. P. Siding, Vijayawada. The said consignment was loaded in the Wagon No. SE. 87504. On 6-7-1988, the consignment arrived at m. P. Siding, Vijayawada. The applicant- company suspected a shortage in the consignment and, therefore, requested the respondents for re-weighment. But the respondents turned down its request for re- weighment in the presence of its representative and, therefore, the applicant got the said consignment re-weighed by the Surveyor. On the said re-weighment, a shortage of 12. 36 metric tonnes was disclosed. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the respondents (Railways) that the consignment loaded in the said wagon was carried to the destination with due care and caution and the same was placed at M. P. Siding, vijayawada on 5-7-1988. The contents were unloaded by the applicant on 6-7-1988. Actually the applicant took the delivery on 9-7-1988 without any protest, under the signature. There was no negligence or misconduct or any interference on the part of the respondents (Railways) in carrying the said consignment. Therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation towards the value of the consignment, alleged to have been short- delivered. It is further stated that the consignment loaded by the applicant in the said wagon as per the said Railway receipt dated 27-6-1998 from Bhilai Steel plant, Bhilai to the M. P. Siding, Vijayawada has been carried with due care and caution and the wagon was placed irt the m. P. Siding at Vijayawada on 5-7-1988. The applicant took delivery of the said consignment under the clear signature dated 9-7-1988. The applicant took delivery of the said consignment under the clear signature dated 9-7-1988. Therefore, there was no obligation to the Railway authorities to consider the request of re-weighment. ( 4 ) ONE M. Anand Ray Chowdari, working in the applicant-company, who was examined in support of the claim of the applicant, admitted in the cross- examination that the M. P. Siding at vijayawada is completely manned by the applicant s staff. The wagon was placed in the applicant s M. P. Siding at Vijayawada on 5-7-1988 and the delivery of goods was taken on 9-7-1988 under clear signature. Unloading of the goods was done by the applicant. Admittedly, the said Railway receipt, with regard to the consignment booked for transportation in the said wagon to be delivered in the private siding of the applicant, is not loaded or unloaded in the presence of the Railway staff. If the receipt given by the Railway authorities is said to contain, under Section 76 (C) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (for short, "the Act"), a Railway Administration shall not be responsible for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of such goods from whatever cause arising after the wagon contains the goods has been placed at the point of interchange of wagons between the Railway Administration and the owner of the Siding has been informed in writing that the wagon has been so placed. ( 5 ) SECTION 76 (C) of the Act is extracted as follows:"responsibility for goods to be delivered at siding: In the case of goods to be delivered by a Railway Administration at a Siding belonging to the administration, the Railway administration shall not be responsible for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of such goods from whatever cause arising after the wagon contains the goods has been placed at the point of interchange of wagons between the Railway administration and the owner of the siding has been informed in writing that the wagon has been so placed. " ( 6 ) IN the instant case, admittedly, the consignment was booked at the private Siding of the applicant and the railway Administration informed the applicant that the said wagon has been placed at its private Siding. The applicant took delivery of the consignment without any protest. Therefore, there is no responsibility on the part of the Railway Administration for the alleged shortage of the said consignment. The applicant took delivery of the consignment without any protest. Therefore, there is no responsibility on the part of the Railway Administration for the alleged shortage of the said consignment. Section 76 (c) of the old Act corresponds to Section 94 of the Act (New act ). The Tribunal, without considering the aforesaid legal provision awarded compensation of Rs. 38,316/- to the applicant along with 12% interest without any justification, whatsoever. The said order of the Tribunal is illegal and unsustainable. The endorsement of "said to contain" is there in the Railway receipt and the said consignment was booked at the private siding of the Steel Authority and unloaded at the private Siding of the applicant and therefore, the Railway Authorities are no way responsible for the same. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid reasons, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed with costs.