Judgment 1. By this appeal, the appellant Union of India has challenged the order dated 24th July 1996 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Application No. 109/OA-A/ RCT/ NGP/93 whereby appellants have been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,85,578/-to the respondent with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of order and 6% per annum from the date of order till realization. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant (present respondent) booked 30 lbs untested steel rails from RMCEL siding Barakar to be carried and delivered at Itwari siding, Nagpur. Appellant no.3 accepted the consignment for delivery under RR No. 375092 on 16.4.1990. The wagon was weighed at Harakar Railway Weigh Bridge as per the railway receipt. The said consignment was placed at Itwari Goods Shed under the jurisdiction of South-Eastern Railway on 9.5.1990 sy 06.30 hours and the staff concerned of the applicant Company attended the wagon and found that all packing strips were broken and material was lying in a scattered state. Applicant Company requested for open delivery on 9.5.1990 itself, but that request was turned down. Consignment was re-weighed in the presence of Notary and short delivery of 89 pieces (15,555 MT) was noticed. The applicant claimed Rs. 2,62,720.10/- from the appellants towards value of short delivered pieces. 3. Present appellants contested the claim alleging that loading was not supervised by the railway staff. Allegation as to the shortage was denied and it was claimed that material was delivered in sound condition. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the open delivery was not demanded at all. Without prejudice to this, it is contended that since the loading of goods was not supervised on behalf of the Railway Administration, there was no question of granting Open Delivery to the respondent. According to learned counsel, the Tribunal should have appreciated this fact and consequently, rejected the claim of applicant Company. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Company supported the impugned order. 6. I have perused the impugned order and record. Before the Tribunal, respondent-Company adduced evidence of two witnesses and proved Railway Receipt (Exhibit P-1) to establish that it had booked 325 pieces of 30 lbs untested steel rails from KMCEL, Barakar siding to Itwari siding, Nagpur. The consignment discrepancy report was also proved on record. 6. I have perused the impugned order and record. Before the Tribunal, respondent-Company adduced evidence of two witnesses and proved Railway Receipt (Exhibit P-1) to establish that it had booked 325 pieces of 30 lbs untested steel rails from KMCEL, Barakar siding to Itwari siding, Nagpur. The consignment discrepancy report was also proved on record. As against this, there was no evidence in rebuttal adduced by the railway administration before the Tribunal. No proper explanation was put forth for turning down the request of respondent-Company for Open Delivery. There was no evidence adduced by the railway administration that the weight shown in the Railway Receipt was not loaded. 7. On perusal of the record, this Court finds that the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced on behalf of respondent-Company in its proper perspective and there is no scope to take different view of the matter particularly when the appellants failed to adduce any evidence. 8. As regards the evaluation of monetary claim, the Tribunal found that the rates of the material in question were controlled by the Government of India and rates were notified by the Joint Plant Committee of the Central Government. On scrutiny of the rates bulletin, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the rate per metric tonne was Rs. 10,620/-and for short delivery of 15,555 MTs, the respondent-Company was held entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,65,194.10/-for cost of material and Rs. 560/- towards Notary charges. In my opinion, interest has also been properly awarded. 9. In the result, no interference is called for in the impugned order. Appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.