Judgment :- 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31.7.1996 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Claim Application No. 369/OAI/RCT/NGP/91 allowing the claim of respondent for Rs. 2,22,320/awarding thereon interest at the rate of 9% from the date of application till the date of order and future interest at the rate of 6% from the date of order till realization, appellants have preferred the instant First Appeal. 2. Respondent was consignee in respect of Boiler Spares dispatched by M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Tiruchirapalli. When the consignment arrived at the destination station, it was found in broken condition and, therefore, respondent demanded open delivery which was granted by the Railway Authorities. In the Joint Open Delivery Report, shortages as described in the claim petition were detected. Respondent lodged claim for Rs. 3,07,773.14 with appellant no.1. It was informed by appellant no.1 that that the claim was transferred to appellant no.2 as the destination station came within its jurisdiction. Since the appellants failed to settle the claim of respondent, claim petition was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal. 3. Appellants filed Written Statement and challenged maintainability of the claim petition as against appellant no. 2 South Eastern Railway inasmuch as it was contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction over the place of booking. It was further contended that the respondent had not clarified if the cause of action arose on South Eastern Railway in a district falling with the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. They prayed for dismissal of claim as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. As regards the monetary claim, it is contended on behalf of the appellants that it was after unloading of the consignment that the open delivery was demanded and, therefore, the Railway Administration was not responsible for alleged damage, shortage or loss. According to appellants, their responsibility ceased as soon as the wagon holding the consignment was placed at the point of interchange of wagons in the siding and taken over by the respondent without reporting any discrepancy. They prayed for dismissal of claim. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused impugned order and relevant documents placed on record. 5. As regards the jurisdiction, it was conceded before the Tribunal on behalf of the appellants that earlier Koradi was under the Central Railways and the ground of jurisdiction, it appears, was not pressed before the Tribunal. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused impugned order and relevant documents placed on record. 5. As regards the jurisdiction, it was conceded before the Tribunal on behalf of the appellants that earlier Koradi was under the Central Railways and the ground of jurisdiction, it appears, was not pressed before the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that if the goods were unloaded at consignee’s siding, Railway Administration is not responsible for damage, if any, found after the consignee unloaded and unsealed the goods at its siding. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Union of India v. IBP Co. Ltd reported in 2005 (2) TAC 671 (AP). In the alternative, according to learned counsel, it may have happened that the goods were packed in a broken condition at consignor’s door itself and since in this case, the packing at consignor’s place was not done under the supervision of Railways, appellant is not responsible for any loss, destruction or damage to the goods unpacked by the consignee at its siding. In support of this contention, learned counsel relies upon Union of India v. IOL, Madras reported in 2005 (1) TAC 164 (AP). Reliance is also placed in this behalf on Union of India v. Aluminium Industries reported in AIR 1987 Orissa 149. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that where the consignee alleges shortage of consignment, but fails to adduce any evidence to establish the quantity of goods actually booked at forwarding station, consignee is not entitled to receive any compensation. He pressed into service Union of India v. M/s Steel Authority of India reported in AIR 2000 Orissa 27. 7. From the documentary evidence, the Tribunal has found that the packing was properly done; wagon was unloaded on 26.10.1988, but before unloading of the wagon, open delivery of consignment was demanded by the consignee much before. It is not disputed by the Railway Administration that after open delivery, the shortage certificate was prepared jointly and it was signed on behalf of the Railways as also by the agent of MSEB. Now, therefore, it is not open for the appellant to turn nelson’s eye to the shortage certificate and loss/damage ascertained thereunder. The very conduct of the authorities to agree for open delivery on prior demand reveals that goods were not unpacked by the consignee. Now, therefore, it is not open for the appellant to turn nelson’s eye to the shortage certificate and loss/damage ascertained thereunder. The very conduct of the authorities to agree for open delivery on prior demand reveals that goods were not unpacked by the consignee. Preparation of shortage certificate was a joint venture and the appellant cannot be heard to say that it was an empty-formality and what was done, was not provided anywhere under the Indian Railways Act or Rules framed thereunder and therefore, not binding on it. The Railways cannot be allowed to question the shortage certificate or resile therefrom by virtue of principle of estoppel by deed. In the light of these facts, ratio laid down in the aforesaid rulings pressed into service by learned counsel for the appellant is of no avail to it. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, proper and needs no interference. 8. The grounds raised in the memo of appeal as regards failure on the part of respondent to serve statutory notice on appellant and as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, were not agitated before me at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Since the findings rendered by the Tribunal in that behalf have gone unchallenged, the same need not be gone into in this 1st appeal. Even otherwise, this Court on perusal of record and evidence finds that statutory notice was duly given and that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the claim petition. 9. In the result, appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.