JUDGMENT 1. - These appeals, under Section 23 of Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, (for short the 'Act'), have been preferred by the appellant Gujrat State Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd., against the orders dated 24.01.2003 (Appeal Nos. 1106/03, 1102/03, 1103/03 and 1105/03), and Order dated 13.12.2002 (Appeal No. 880/2003) passed by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the claim applications of the appellant were dismissed. Since similar factual and legal position is involved in these appeals, the same are being heard together and disposed of by common judgment. 2. Briefly stated the common facts in these Appeals are that the appellant M/s. Gujrat State Fertilizer & Chemicals Ltd. booked certain consignments from GSFC Siding, Moti Khavdi to Sri Ganganagar, vide Railway Receipts as mentioned in the respective appeals. The consignments were dispatched by the respondent railway administration from applicant's Siding in a rake to the destination. The consignments were booked at the Railway's risk rate and all the bags were handed over in good and sound condition to the Railway Administration. 3. However, at the destination, as many as 78 bags of DAP weighing 3.9 MT (in appeal No. 1106/03) 54 bags of DAP in appeal No. 880/03, 58 bags of urea and 33 bags of DAP in Appeal No. 1102/03, 48 bags of DAP in appeal No. 1103/03, 83 bags of Ammonium Sulphate and 36 bags in DAP in appeal No. 1105/03, were found short by the appellant on the basis of Panch nama prepared though no shortage certificate was issued. Hence, the appellant filed these claim applications which were dismissed by the Tribunal vide orders referred herein above. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the documentary evidence in the claim petitions as the Tribunal should have gone into outward tally book and Inward Tally Book while deciding the claims of the appellant and failure to do so amounts to miscarriage of justice as it could not have been possible to decide the claims on merits. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Union of India v. Roop Narayan and etc., reported in AIR 1997 Raj. 123 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Tribunal has decided the claim applications in right perspective by taking into account the factual as well as legal aspect of the matter. 123 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Tribunal has decided the claim applications in right perspective by taking into account the factual as well as legal aspect of the matter. From the impugned orders it is revealed that the learned Tribunal has found no case of misconduct or negligence on the part of the railways, either during the course of the transit or at the destination, which could result in the shortage of fertilizers. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has considered the copies of RR and the Forwarding Note wherein there was a clear endorsement about the fact that the consignments were loaded in the private Siding of the appellant and the same were not supervised by the Railway staff and as such neither the bags were counted nor the contents were checked by the railway staff. Learned Counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that no Shortage Certificate was issued to the appellant as the wagons carrying the goods were neither found tampered with nor with broken seals. The attention of the Court was also drawn to the finding of the learned Tribunal on the point that the unloading was also done by the applicant himself and bags were not counted by the railway authorities and that in the absence of definite endorsement about counting of bags and supervision of loading/unloading, the respondent could not have been compelled to issue a Shortage Certificate. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Union of India v. M/s. I.B.P. Co. Ltd., Chennai, AIR 2005 AP 179 , Union of India v. Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd., AIR 1995 Orissa 298 , Union of India v. Aluminum Industries Ltd., AIR 1987 Orissa 149 , Radhey Shyam Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1980 Madhya Pradesh 95 , Bhutnath Chatterjee v. The State of Bihar and Ors., AIR 1973 Patna 247 , and Hari Sao v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 843 . It was further submitted that the judgment relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant in Union of India v. Roop Narayan and etc. . It was further submitted that the judgment relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant in Union of India v. Roop Narayan and etc. . (supra) is not applicable to the facts of these appeals as in the above cited matter the loading and unloading was done not on the private siding but on the commercial side, therefore, same was supervised by the Railways. 6. Section 65 pertains to Railway receipt which provides that railway receipt shall be prima facie evidence of the weight and the number of packages stated therein. It has been further provided that in the case of a consignment in wagon-load or train-load and the weight or the number of packages is not checked by a railway servant authorised in this behalf, and a statement to that effect is recorded in such railway receipt by him, the burden of proving the weight or, as the case may be, the number of packages stated therein, shall lie on the consignor, the consignee or the endorsee. 7. Apart from this, the other important document to base the claim is provided under Section 64 of the Act, which pertains to Forwarding Note. This note is to be executed by every person entrusting any goods to railway administration for carriage in such form as may be specified by the Central Government. The consignor is made responsible for the correctness of the particulars furnished by him in the forwarding note. 8. On perusal of the impugned orders, it is revealed that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the entries of forwarding note as well as railway receipts, which were found no tally exactly. Learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration the fact that in the absence of definite endorsement about counting of bags and supervision of loading/unloading, the shortage could not have been ascertained and as such the Railway could not be compelled to issue a Shortage Certificate, specially in a case when there was not visible sign of tampering with the consignment enroute. The factual position that the goods were loaded from private siding and also unloaded by the appellant without the supervision of the railway staff and that RR issued for the goods loaded, have not been disputed before the Tribunal. The factual position that the goods were loaded from private siding and also unloaded by the appellant without the supervision of the railway staff and that RR issued for the goods loaded, have not been disputed before the Tribunal. The only argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that without considering the outward tally book and inward tally book maintained by the railway for their internal use, the claim applications could not have been decided as it could result in miscarriage of justice. In this regard, it may be noted that the learned Tribunal has considered all the documents produced on behalf of both the sides and that the Tribunal had occasion to even consider outward tally book and inward tally book in the Appeal Nos. 1103/03 and 880/03 as specifically mentioned in the respective impugned orders. Moreover, the learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to show that as to how his case could be prejudiced for want of inward or outward tally books in view of the finding of learned Tribunal that the goods were loaded at the private siding without supervision of the railway which is revealed from the endorsement on the RR as well as Forwarding Note and that the goods were unloaded at the destination by the appellant that too without supervision of the railway staff. In view of the above findings, the, authority reported in Union of India v. Roop Narayan (supra) is not applicable to the facts of these appeals while the authority reported in (supra) and relied upon by the Counsel for the respondent and the Tribunal is pertinent on the point that the onus is on the appellant to establish as to what quantity has actually been booked at the forwarding station of private siding of the consignor and in absence of such evidence, no such claim can be sustained. In the instant appeals the factual position as emerged revealed that the appellant has failed to discharge the onus as to what quantity has actually been booked from his private siding and unloaded by him without supervision of railway staff. 9. In view of this, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal and hence these appeals are dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******