JUDGMENT Anima Hazarika, J. 1. Invoking power under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Union of India represented by the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon has preferred the instant appeal questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 6-3-2007 passed in Review Application No. 1 of 2007 whereby the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dismissed the review application holding that the Railway had failed to make out a case for review as provided under Rule 32 of Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Procedure Rules') thereby affirmed the judgment and order dated 4-12-2006 arising out of O. A. No. 468/2004 directing the N.F. Railway to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,86,20,510/- (Rupees one crore eighty six lakhs twenty thousand five hundred and ten) only (hereinafter referred to as the 'compensation amount') with interest @ 7% from the date of filing of O.A. i.e. 6-12-2004 within 60 (sixty) days failing which the Respondent Railways shall be required to pay interest @ 9% from 6-12-2004 along with the cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- inclusive of application fee of Rs. 95,569/-. 2. The pleaded facts of the case is narrated hereunder in seriatim as follows: The Appellant herein was arrayed as party Respondent No. 1 before the learned Tribunal titled as O. A. No. 467/2004 and O. A. No. 468/2004 whereas M/s. Gopal Enterprise was arrayed as pro forma Respondent No. 2 in O. A. No. 467/2004 and Assam State Cooperative Marketing and Consumers Federation ('STAFFED' for short) was arrayed as pro forma Respondent No. 2 on O. A. No. 468/2004. The aforesaid two O. A.s have been filed seeking compensation against the Respondent No. 1 Railway on the ground of non-delivery of goods to the titleholder. 3. The record would reveal that one Shri S.R. Bhalotia of Kolkata made an offer to the Respondent No. 1 for purchase of Section 30 quality of sugar for the year 2002-2003 at Rs. 1034/- per quintal which was accepted by the Respondent No. 1 and accordingly 23,200 quintals of sugar was agreed to be purchased as per letter of acceptance dated 25-2-2003. In the aforesaid letter of acceptance certain conditions were incorporated. One of the condition relates to quality of sugar as enumerated as condition No. 9. 1034/- per quintal which was accepted by the Respondent No. 1 and accordingly 23,200 quintals of sugar was agreed to be purchased as per letter of acceptance dated 25-2-2003. In the aforesaid letter of acceptance certain conditions were incorporated. One of the condition relates to quality of sugar as enumerated as condition No. 9. According to the said condition quality of sugar was required to be checked by the buyers before loading making it clear that thereafter no complaint would be entertained. 4. Thereafter the aforesaid S.R. Bhalotia transferred the agreement for purchase of sugar equally between pro forma Respondent No. 2 i.e. STATFED both in O. A. No. 467/2004 and O. A. No. 468/2004 which was accepted by Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 26-2-2003. Accordingly the Respondent No. 1 transferred the order in favour of the pro forma Respondents who in turn accepted the offer, meaning thereby that the pro forma Respondents are bound by the terms of acceptance incorporated in the letter of acceptance dated 25-2-2003. The condition specified in the letter of acceptance was that the buyer was required to pay 100% of the price of sugar through bank and the said S.R. Bhalotia in his letter of offer dated 21-2-2003 had agreed to release the railway receipts from the bank after making payment which would disclose that there were two distinct contract for supply of purchase of sugar by the applicants and M/s. Gopal Enterprises and the STATFED. 5. As agreed to by the pro forma Respondents, the applicants dispatched 11,580 quintals of sugar in favour of the pro forma Respondent No. 2 in O. A. No. 467/2004 under Railway Receipt No. 379753 to 379772 dated 27-2-2003. The value of the consignment inclusive of incidental expenses like insurance, transportation, etc. was Rs. 1,50,06,227/- whereas in respect of O. A. No. 468/2004, (i.e., with regard to the present appeal) 11,588 quintals was dispatched by the applicants to the pro forma Respondent No. 2 STATFED under Railway Receipt Nos. 379773 to 379792 dated 28-2-2003 and the value of the consignment was Rs. 1,50,16,540/- excluding incidental expenses like insurance and transport charges. It was further mutually agreed between the applicants and the pro forma Respondents that failure to release the railway receipts from the bank within 5 days, they would be liable to pay interest @ 16%. 6. 379773 to 379792 dated 28-2-2003 and the value of the consignment was Rs. 1,50,16,540/- excluding incidental expenses like insurance and transport charges. It was further mutually agreed between the applicants and the pro forma Respondents that failure to release the railway receipts from the bank within 5 days, they would be liable to pay interest @ 16%. 6. However, on 13-3-2003 the applicants by phonogram and letter informed the Chief Goods Superintendent, New Guwahati, N.F. Railway not to release the goods to the pro forma Respondents without production of original Railway Receipts which the pro forma Respondents are required to release from the Syndicate Bank after making full payment of the value of the goods. It was further informed to the Railway not to release the goods on execution of Indemnity Note/Bond. The Syndicate Bank also informed the Respondent Railway that the original railway receipt are lying with the Bank. 7. In spite of the instructions in the phonogram and letter as indicated above, the Respondent Railway delivered the goods without production of the original Railway Receipts on execution of Indemnity Note/Bond, even the goods were not delivered to the named consignee the STATFED in O. A. No. 468/2004 resulting in loss to the applicants and therefore claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 1,38,83,322/- after adjustment of advance plus interest @ 18% and costs which comes to Rs. 1,86,20,510/- and the aforesaid compensation is claimed against the Respondents Railways and no claim is made against the pro forma Respondents. 8. Before the learned Tribunal the Respondent Railway have raised common legal pleas in the written statement, viz., (a) The learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim cases under Section 13(1)(a)(b) of the Act, (b) The application is not maintainable under Section 106 of the Railways Act, and (c) The application is not maintainable as it is a dispute between consignor and the consignee. Apart from the technical pleas as averred in the written statement the Railways definite case was that the goods were delivered to the named consignees after execution of Indemnity Note/Bond by the consignees as required under the Rules and it is categorically denied that goods were delivered to 'somebody' as contended by the applicants. It was the positive case of the Railways that the goods were delivered to the pro forma Respondents who were the consignees. 9. It was the positive case of the Railways that the goods were delivered to the pro forma Respondents who were the consignees. 9. The pro forma Respondent No. 2 in O. A. No. 468/2004 has filed the written statement denying the averments made by the Railways contending inter alia that the pro forma Respondent has not entered into any agreement either with S.R. Bhalotia & Co., Kolkata or with M/s. Gopal Enterprises, Guwahati at any time and have denied that the Railway had delivered the consignment to the pro forma Respondent No. 2. The pro forma Respondent No. 2 has further averred that the claims pertain to prepaid Railway Receipt and the competent authority of the pro forma Respondents have not authorized any person in any manner to take delivery of the consignment in question or any part thereof nor issued any document for releasing the same. 10. The learned Tribunal took up the technical pleas of jurisdiction raised by the Respondent Railway and answered the same in negative holding that Section 13(a)(i) of the Act provides for compensation for loss, damage, deterioration and non-delivery of consignment entrusted to the Railway administration for carriage. Sub-Section 2 provides that the provisions of Railway Act and Rules made therein shall be applicable as far as possible in determining any claim before the Tribunal. Section 93 of the Railways Act specifically provides that the Railway Administration shall be liable for non-delivery of consignments. Section 99 of the Railways Act fixes responsibility on the Railway Administration even up to 7 days after termination of transit as a bailee of the goods under Section 151, 152, and 161 of the Indian Contract Act. Section 76 of the Railways Act requires the Respondents to deliver the goods only on production of Railway Receipts and there is an express bar to the civil Court to entertain any application for compensation under Section 15 of the Act. Since the entire compensation has been sought for against the Railways for non-delivery to the titleholder of the goods, the Tribunal held that it has jurisdiction to entertain such cases. 11. In regard to notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, the learned Tribunal has held that the goods were booked on 27/28-2-2003. Since the entire compensation has been sought for against the Railways for non-delivery to the titleholder of the goods, the Tribunal held that it has jurisdiction to entertain such cases. 11. In regard to notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, the learned Tribunal has held that the goods were booked on 27/28-2-2003. The same arrived on 13-3-2003 and on the same day the applicants sent a phonogram and a letter to the Respondent Railway not to deliver the goods without production of the original Railway Receipts. The breach of instruction, thus, construed a clear cause of action and therefore rejected the pleas of notice raised under Section 106 of the Railways Act. 12. The third technical plea raised regarding maintainability of the application on the ground that the dispute is between the consignor and the consignee only, the learned Tribunal rejected the plea so raised by holding that the claims have been raised against the Railways and not against the pro forma Respondents and the record would demonstrate that the applicants have cause of action against the Railways Respondents for having affected the delivery of the goods belonging to the applicants for carriage to the unauthorized persons causing loss to the applicants, moreso, when there is negligence on the part of the Respondent Railways which comes within the purview of Section 151 and 152 of the Contract Act, the Respondents Railways will be bound to make good for the loss sustained and therefore the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide the case for appropriate compensation. 13. On merit the learned Tribunal has held that Section 76 of the Railways Act would not come in aid to the Respondents Railways while delivering the consignments to the named consignees under cover of Indemnity Note/Bond since the original Railway Receipts were not lost or not forthcoming. The Railway Receipts were lying with the Syndicate. Bank and the pro forma Respondent was aware that the Railway Receipts were lying with the Syndicate Bank requiring them to release the Railway Receipts from the Bank after payment of full value of the respective consignments. The Railway Receipts would not come with the custody of the pro forma Respondents unless full payment of the value of the consignment was made to the Bank. Therefore the situation cannot be construed as Railway Receipts not forthcoming as specified in Section 76 of the Railways Act. 14. The Railway Receipts would not come with the custody of the pro forma Respondents unless full payment of the value of the consignment was made to the Bank. Therefore the situation cannot be construed as Railway Receipts not forthcoming as specified in Section 76 of the Railways Act. 14. Moreover the learned Tribunal has held that when Railway Receipts, invoice, transit invoice are not received and the receipt cannot be produced by the consignee/endorsee, the delivery of the consignment should be made under the orders of the Divisional Commercial Superintendent on production of proper Indemnity Note/Bond. But the Respondents Railways did not verify as to whether the Bond executed was proper nor, have obtained the order from the Divisional Commercial Superintendent as per provision of Rule 1832 of Commercial Manual, which interestingly has been relied upon by Railways themselves which speaks that orders are required to be obtained from the Divisional Commercial Superintendent in case where the invoice, transit invoice are not received and the receipt cannot be produced by the consignee. Therefore violating all norms the goods were delivered immediately on the very date of arrival without even waiting for the free time resulting in loss of the value of the goods to the applicants and therefore the Respondents Railways have to beat the burden of loss caused by themselves in delivering the goods to the unknown persons. 15. The learned Tribunal has further held that admittedly the goods were delivered to the party not entitled to receive under the law without original Railway Receipt being produced which can be construed that the delivery of goods were made in haste and on extraneous consideration which would be evident on the Indemnity Note/Bond produced and accepted by the Respondents Railway while delivering the goods viz., (a) The Indemnity Note/Bond was not inscribed on the requisite stamp paper as required under the Stamp Act but were merely a xerox copy of specimen provided in the goods tariff, though indemnity note/bond bear Court fee; (b) The value of the consideration for which bond was given was not mentioned in the indemnity note; (c) It is not clear whether bond was issued in favour of the President of India or the Railway administration. The bond in favour of the latter is required only in case the railways is a private railway. The bond in favour of the latter is required only in case the railways is a private railway. (d) In O. A. No. 468/2004, the name of the officials of STATFED purported to have executed the Indemnity Bond/Note is not mentioned and whether the persons had the authority is not evident; (e) The bond is not dated; (f) The bond appears to have been signed by the officials of STATFED one day before the goods arrived confirming that the entire exercise was pre-mediated; and (g) A fresh Bond on Stamp Paper of Rs. 10/- has been inserted on record. The same is purported to have been signed by the officials of the Respondent Railway on 6-8-2004 when the Stamp paper was purchased on 28-4-2006, which makes it clear the connivance of the Officers of the Railway with the interested party. 16. In the totality of the circumstances the Tribunal has held the Indemnity Note/Bond is inadmissible since the same was not executed on stamp paper and the Respondents Railway have committed gross impropriety in delivering the consignments to the unauthorized person and that too, without obtaining original Railway Receipts by violating the provisions of Section 76 of the Railways Act whereof committed breach of Sections 151 and 152 of the Contract Act causing loss to the applicants and came to a finding that the applicants are entitled for compensation from the Respondents Railway and hence allowed the O.A. directing to pay the compensation amount as indicated above and hence the appeal. 17. Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. Also heard Mr. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. B.M. Choudhury learned Counsel s for Respondent No. 2 (STATFED). 18. Pressing the appeal into action, Mr. S. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel representing the Appellants Railway raised the following questions, viz., (a) The controversy between the parties in regard to delivering of goods being a question of civil dispute the learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the cases since there is a bar under Section 13 of the Act, (b) The consignment having booked through a negotiation with the Syndicate Bank and the consignment was booked between the parties after execution of an agreement between the claimant, one M/s. S.R. Bhalotia & Co. and STATFED and therefore both the O. A. would fail for non-joinder of Syndicate Bank and M/s. S.R. Bhalotia & Co. and STATFED and therefore both the O. A. would fail for non-joinder of Syndicate Bank and M/s. S.R. Bhalotia & Co. in the proceeding. (c) The pro forma Respondent No. 2 in O. A. No. 467/2004, M/s. S.G. Enterprise has prayed to allow the said pro forma Respondent No. 2 to intervene in O. A. No. 468/2004 which was rejected by the Tribunal thereby causing serious error in adjudicating the cases; (d) The consignment being booked not as "self booking" (value payable system) but the same was booked as "named consignee" meaning thereby that the delivery is to make to the recorded consignee and accordingly delivered to the recorded consignee which cannot be find fault with the railways; (e) The claimant made the booking on 27/28-2-2003 which reached the destination on 13-3-2003 at about 7.00 hrs and the same was delivered on 13-3-2003 to the named consignee on execution of indemnity bond and the consignee made the phonogram at 5.15 p.m., through Department of Telecom, Nipani requesting the Railways not to hand over the goods in support of indemnity bond which was received on 17-3-2003 by the Guwahati Telegram Office on 20-3-2003, the said communication was delivered to the Railways much after the delivery was effected which fact though highlighted, the Tribunal did not take into consideration. (g) The consignment was delivered to the named consignee after verifying the transit invoice, card label, etc. invoking power under the provision contained in the Indian Railways Commercial Manual Vol. II Para 832 Clause 3 and therefore the delivery of consignment cannot be find faulted with the Railways; (h) Admittedly there was an agreement between M/s. S.R. Bhalotia & Co. with M/s. S.G. Enterprise and STAFFED and on instruction from STATFED delivery was taken by M/s. S.G. Enterprise who is a sister concern of M/s. S.R. Bhalotia & Co. and therefore the delivery cannot be termed as premeditated in haste and on extraneous consideration; and (i) The Tribunal has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in not considering the provisions of Section 102 of the Railways Act in saddling the compensation against the Railways. 19. Countering the attack Mr. and therefore the delivery cannot be termed as premeditated in haste and on extraneous consideration; and (i) The Tribunal has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in not considering the provisions of Section 102 of the Railways Act in saddling the compensation against the Railways. 19. Countering the attack Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 herein would contend that the technical pleas raised by the Railways Appellant herein has been answered elaborately by the learned Tribunal which do not require to be interfered with in this appeal. 20. The counsel has further contended that the goods were booked vide Railway Receipts issued by the Railway Administration on 28-2-2003 at Ghatprabha for delivery of the goods to the consignee at Guwahati on surrender of the original Railway Receipts which were negotiated through the Syndicate Bank. Moreover the consignor being an unpaid seller, the title in the goods did not pass on the consignee Until the payment is made and the Railway Receipts are released by the Bank which has been violated on extraneous consideration and therefore do not require to be interfered with. 21. The counsel has urged that a phonogram was sent to the Railway, Guwahati informing that the goods were to be released only against the original Railway Receipts and not on indemnity bond and the said facts were also intimated by the Syndicate Bank in their letter dated 13-3-2003 to the Railway intimating that the goods not to be released to the consignee as the Railway Receipts were negotiated with them for collection of the bill proceeds which has been overlooked in a premeditated manner and the delivery was made on the same day in haste causing loss to the Respondents and thus the impugned judgment and order do not require to be interfered with in the facts and circumstances of the case, thereby supported the judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal. 22. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel representing the Respondent No. 1 claimant, has relied upon the following decisions: (i) AIR 1952 All 891 (Governor General in Council and Ors. v. Mahabir Ram and Anr.); (ii) AIR 1952 All 897 (Mustaddi Lal v. Governor General in Council); (iii) AIR 1963 SC 422 (Union of India and Ors. 22. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel representing the Respondent No. 1 claimant, has relied upon the following decisions: (i) AIR 1952 All 891 (Governor General in Council and Ors. v. Mahabir Ram and Anr.); (ii) AIR 1952 All 897 (Mustaddi Lal v. Governor General in Council); (iii) AIR 1963 SC 422 (Union of India and Ors. v. Udho Ram & Sons); (iv) ( (1963) 2 SCR 832 : AIR 1962 SC 1879 ) (Jetmull Bhojraj v. The Darjeeling Himalayan Railway Co. Ltd.) (v) AIR 1966 SC 395 (Union of India and Anr. v. West Punjab Factories Ltd.); (vi) AIR 1976 SC 1414 (Union of India and Ors. v. Suganli Sugar Works (P) Ltd.); (vii) AIR 1998 SC 1659 (P.A. Narayan v. Union of India and Ors.); (viii) AIR 2001 Bom 435 (Jolly Steel Industries (p) Ltd. v. Union of India); (ix) AIR 2002 Mad 48 (Union of India and Anr. v. M/s, Shree Emporium and Anr.); 23. Mr. B.M. Choudhury learned Counsel appearing on behalf of pro forma Respondent No. 2, STATFED has submitted that Appellant Railway has never delivered the consignment to the STATFED. Mr. Choudhury would further contend that the claims pertains to prepaid Railway Receipt and the competent authority of the STATFED never authorized any person in any manner to take delivery of the consignment in question or any part thereof, nor issued any document for releasing the same. It is the specific case of the STATFED that it has not entered into any agreement either with S.R. Bhalotia & Co., Kolkata or with M/s. Gopal Enterprise, Guwahati at any time. 24. Before answering the questions raised by the parties it would be appropriate to refer the issues raised before the learned Tribunal on the pleadings of the parties, viz., (i) Whether the Respondent Railway proves that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the O. A. as the dispute is primarily against the pro forma Respondent No. 2? (ii) Whether the Respondent Railway has delivered the consignment to the named consignee? (iii) Whether there was negligence on the part of the Respondent No. 1 being the bailee of the goods while delivering the consignment without the production of Railway Receipts? (iv) Whether the applicant proves that they are entitled to compensation @ Rs. 1,86,20,510.00 with 16% interest? (v) Whether the applicant has served notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act? 25. (iv) Whether the applicant proves that they are entitled to compensation @ Rs. 1,86,20,510.00 with 16% interest? (v) Whether the applicant has served notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act? 25. In answering the issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal has dealt with the matter extensively referring Section 13 of the Act, whereof Sub-section (a)(i) provides for compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration and non-delivery of consignment entrusted to the Railway wherein Sub-Section 2 provides that provisions of Railways Act and Rules framed thereunder shall be made applicable as far as possible in determining any claim before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has referred Section 93 of the Railways Act which provides that the Railway administration shall be liable for non-delivery of consignment. Learned Tribunal has further referred Section 99 of the Railways Act which fixes the responsibility on the railway administration even upto 7 days after the termination of transit as a bailee of the goods under Sections 151, 152 and 161 of the Contract Act. Referring to Section 76 of the Railways Act fixed the responsibility on the Railways to deliver the goods only on production of Railway Receipts as there is an express bar of the civil Court to entertain any application for compensation under Section 15 of the Act. The Tribunal has therefore held that admittedly the goods to the applicants as required by the carriers as a bailee and the goods were delivered by the Respondent Railway to the unauthorized person who has no title to claim the delivery, moreso, when no title passes to the consignee of the goods without original Railway Receipts as required under Section 74 of the Act and the claim for compensation being sought against the Railway the Tribunal has held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the cases since the Railway as a bailee delivered the goods to the unauthorized person which amounts to non-delivery of the goods. In view of the reasoning given by the Tribunal in the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has rightly held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the application. Therefore, the question raised in this appeal relating to jurisdiction requires no interference and answered in negative accordingly. 26. In view of the reasoning given by the Tribunal in the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has rightly held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the application. Therefore, the question raised in this appeal relating to jurisdiction requires no interference and answered in negative accordingly. 26. In regard to the issue No. 2, it has been categorically found that the goods were not delivered to the consignee, more particularly, STATFED, the pro forma Respondent No. 2 in O. A. No. 468/2004 wherein STATFED has contested the case contending inter alia that the goods were not delivered to the pro forma Respondent No. 2 as a consignee which clearly proves that the goods were delivered to unauthorized person for extraneous consideration and this Court do not inclined to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal, moreso, when the records would speak that the goods were delivered to M/s. Gopal Enterprises in O. A. No. 467/2004 without the original Railway Receipts being produced to the Railway administration. 27. The finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal relating to issue No. 3 would show that without the original Railway Receipts being produced, the goods were delivered even if the requirement of the procedure has been clearly laid down in the Rule 1832 of the Commercial Manual requires that when the invoice, transit invoice not received and the receipt cannot be produced by the consignee/endorsee, the delivery of the consignment should be made under the orders of the Divisional Commercial Superintendent and production of proper Indemnity Note/Bond whereas, no such order was obtained from the Divisional Commercial Superintendent and there is no explanation by the Railway in regard to such a serious irregularity. Thus the requirement as provided in Rule 1832 has not been followed by the Respondent Railway while delivering the goods to unauthorized person being the bailee of the goods and therefore this Court do not intend to interfere with the aforesaid finding, when the Railway has admitted that the Rule 1832 is applicable in absence of Railway Receipts being produced at the time of delivery of goods. 28. 28. The applicant has proved that the claimant has sustained loss due to delivery of the consignments to the unauthorized person without obtaining original Railway Receipts and the Indemnity Bond/Note, produced and accepted by the Respondent Railway would amply demonstrate that the bonds were not admissible in evidence violating Section 76 of the Act read with Section 151 and 152 of the Contract Act causing loss to the claimants and therefore, entitled to compensation and hence rightly awarded the compensation. This Court would therefore not interfere with the decision arrived at with regard to issue No. 4, moreso, the record would prove that the Indemnity Note/Bond produced and acted while delivering the goods by the Respondent Railway was" not proper, if taken into account the totality of the case as dealt with by the Railway, when the learned Tribunal has found that a fresh Bond on stamp paper was inserted on record after the initial Indemnity Bond/Note produced during the trial. 29. With regard to the issue relating to notice under Section 106 of the Act the learned tribunal has held that the claimant had sent a phonogram on 13-3-2003 along with a letter addressed to the Respondent Railway which was received in time though there were couple of reminders sent by the claimants relating to status of the consignments whereof no reply was given by the Railway and hence held that notice under Section 106 of the Railway Act as raised, required to be rejected which the learned Tribunal rightly did and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the question raised relating to notice as urged by the counsel of the Railways. 30. Now the question remained to be answered as to whether the non-joinder of Syndicate Bank and M/s. S.R. Bhalotia and Company as urged would be fatal to the case. The facts pleaded in the original application would show that the entire claim has been made against the Respondent Railway, the consignment being delivered to the unauthorized persons and hence the same is answered in the negative. 31. The facts pleaded in the original application would show that the entire claim has been made against the Respondent Railway, the consignment being delivered to the unauthorized persons and hence the same is answered in the negative. 31. The question of intervening as sought for by the pro forma Respondent No. 2 of O. A. No. 467/2004 in O. A. No. 468/2004, the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed hereinabove would make it clear that the same would not prejudice the pro forma Respondent since the pro forma Respondent No. 2 of O. A. No. 467/2004 had contested the case by producing the Indemnity Bond/Note which is not admissible in evidence, though took the delivery of goods on the basis of the same, without producing the original Railway receipts and hence answered in the negative. 32. The other questions relating to delivery of consignments to the named consignee by the Respondent Railway is answered in the negative as because the delivery of goods was made without the original Railway Receipts being produced and the delivery of consignment was not made to STATFED. In regard to the delivery of consignment on the same day, it was held after detailed discussion that the same was made in haste though the Railway was aware that the original Railway Receipts were lying with the Syndicate Bank and even then accepted the inadmissible Indemnity Bond/Note while releasing the consignment to unauthorized person, that too in violation of Rules 1832 of the Commercial Manual Vol. II and thus it can be termed as pre-meditated, made in haste and on extraneous consideration and hence answered in the negative, and the decision so arrived at by the Tribunal do not require to be interfered with and therefore this Court affirmed the decision delivered by the learned Tribunal in awarding compensation. 33. Now the decisions referred to is required to be considered as to whether these decisions are applicable to the instant case. 33. Now the decisions referred to is required to be considered as to whether these decisions are applicable to the instant case. In the decision rendered in Mahabir Ram (supra) and Mutsaddi Lal (supra) the Apex Court held that where the claim is not based upon the loss of the goods by the railway administration but upon non-delivery for other causes and there is no evidence to establish that there was loss of the goods by the Railway administration, Section 77 of the Railway Act does not apply and the suit does not fall for want of notice under Section 77 of the Act which is not applicable to the instant case. 34. The decisions referred in Udho Ram & Sons (supra), Jetmull Bhojraj (supra), West Punjab Factories Ltd., (supra), Suganli Sugar Works (P) Ltd., (supra) and P.A. Narayan (supra) deal with responsibility for the loss of goods by the Railway. The Apex Court held that Section 72 of the Railway Act provides the responsibility of the Railway administration for the loss of the goods delivered to the administration to be carried by Railway is subject to the other provisions of the Act, that of a bailee under Sections 151, 152 and 161 of the Contract Act. This responsibility continues until terminated in accordance with Sections 55 and 56 of the Railways Act. The decisions rendered in the aforesaid cases are squarely applicable to the present case in hand. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that the Railway Administration has failed to discharge its duties thereby awarded the compensation. 35. The case of M/s. Jolly Steel Industries (supra) relates to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in entertaining the claim against the Railway Administration wherein the Apex Court held that if the relief in the claim petition is one or more of the categories of claim enumerated in Section 13 of the Act, then such reliefs have to be tried and decided by the Claims Tribunal only. In the instant case, the claim is made for compensation for delivery of consignment to unauthorized person and hence the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim which has rightly been held by the learned Tribunal wherein the civil Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim has been ousted by virtue of the Act. 36. The case of M/s. Shree Emporium and Anr. 36. The case of M/s. Shree Emporium and Anr. (supra) relates to Section 78 of the Railways Act which deals with consignment and delivery to wrong person on bogus Railway Receipts and failure of authorities to take proper care and caution wherein the Apex Court has held that the consignor is entitled to claim loss with interest and costs, which is applicable in the instant case. The Railway in the instant case has delivered the consignment to unauthorized person in absence of original Railway Receipts being produced and hence there is no impediment to direct to pay compensation against the Railways which has rightly been passed by the Tribunal. 37. In the background of the case as narrated hereinabove this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 6-3-2007 passed by the Tribunal in Review Application No. 1/2007 thereby dismissing the same and affirming the judgment and order dated 4-12-2006 passed in O. A. No. 468/2004. 38. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 39. Registry is directed to send down the records immediately. Appeal dismissed.