ORDER All these appeals between the same parties are against dismissal of the claim of the appellant for compensation against the shortage in the consignment found at the time of delivery, Based on almost similar facts and circumstances were heard simultaneously and are being disposed of by this composite order. 2. The relevant fact common to all appeals is that the appellant got Iodized Salt booked from Nawacity to Warisaliganj, but at the destination he found some shortage in the bags containing Salt and also found seal of the Wagon broken, but, as stated no heed was paid to his request by railway authorities to issue a short certificate, but he was permitted to make a remark to said effect at relevant pages of delivery book on the date he received the consignment giving rise to the claim for compensation. Further, respective relevant details are stated below in a consized tabular form : M.A. No. Application Claim for Consignment as Shortage Details of number (Rs.) per Railway Beejucks Receipt M.A. No. OC 13,200/- Booked on 7/8th 176 bags less Beejuck dated 441/2011 00298/2001 June 2000 against Delivered on 11.06.2000 Filed Dismissed on RR No. 241848 for 11.06.2000 on 14.12.2010 14.02.2011 934 bags. 758x75kg and 176x50kg @ Rs.75/- per bag M.A. No. OC OO234 24,220/- Booked on 6/7th 346 bags less Beejuck dated 443/2011 of 2001 Dis- March 1999 against Delivered on 08.03.1999 Filed missed on RR No. 170268 & 16.03.1999 and on 29.11.2010 14.02.2011 170241 for 797 & 20.03.1999 797x75kg and 800 bags 800x75kg @ Rs.70/- per bag M.A. No. OC 00206/ 13,510/- Booked on 193 bags less Beejuck dated 444/2011 2001 Dismi- 30.01.2000 against Delivered on 30.01.2000 Filed ssed on RR No. 221096 05.02.2000 on 16.11.2010 16.02.2011 for 350 & 548 350x50k & total - 898 bags 548x75k @ Rs.70/- per bag. M.A. No. OC 00232/ 24,080/- Booked on 344 bags less Beejuck dated 445/2011 2001 Dismi- 6/7.03.1999 against Delivered on 08.03.1999 Filed on ssed on RR No. 170265 16.03.1999 & 29.11.2010 796x 16.02.2001 and 170244 for 20.03.1999 75kg & 781x75kg @ 1577bags (796 + Rs.70/- per bag 781) M.A. No. OC 00208/ 17,010/- Booked on 243 bags less Beejuck dated 446/2011 2001 Dismi- 01.01.2000 against Delivered on 01.01.2000 Filed on ssed on RR No. 220769 16.01.2000 16.11.2010 427x75 18.02.2011 for 427 & 511 & 511x50 @ Rs. 70/- total 938 bags per bag M.A. No. OC 00233/ 24,920/- Booked on 356 Bags less Beejuck dated 447/2011 2001 Dismi- 16/17.08.1999 & Delivered 17.08.1999 Filed on ssed on 11.09.1999 against on 29.08.1999 29.11.2010 863 and 14.02.2011 RR No. 172676 and 20.09.1999 740x75 bags @ Rs. and 173117 for 70/- per bags 863 and 740 bags M.A. No. OC 00301/ 13,500/- Booked on 180 bags less Beejuck dated 448/2011 2001 Dismi- 08.06.2000 against Delivered on 11.06.2000 Filed on ssed on RR No. 241838 11.06.2000 14.12.2010 703x75 14.02.2011 for 883 bags & 180x75 @ Rs. 75/- per bag 3. The respondent contested the claim on the ground of maintainability and lack of material evidence to prove the actual enhancement/physical delivery of goods for carriage of consignment of the train load/rake load and number of packet/bags and their weight since consignments have not been checked by railway servant and statement to that effect appears recorded in the railway receipt itself. Thus, it was duty of the claimant to prove actual entrustment etc. as per section 65(2) of the Railway Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). 4. It is undisputed that to substantiate his claim the claimant appellant has filed in all the cases before the tribunal (i) Xerox copy of Railway Receipt, (ii) Original Beejuck, (iii) notice under section 106 of the Act, besides petition and affidavits, but no evidence oral or documentary was produced by the Opposite Party respondent. 5. The claim tribunal analyzing the materials available arrived at the conclusion that applicant has failed to establish actual consignment etc. and the tribunal has also noticed serious irregularities in the said Beejucks produced which besides delayed filing, also appears unnatural and doubtful document in conflict with the claim of the applicant and discussed in detail in the respective orders. Wherein main common focus appears given on its appearance, issuance after booking, delayed filing without any explanation and inconsistency with the Railway Receipt as regard to contents and rate etc. 6. While assailing the findings, learned counsel for the appellant relying upon a decision of this court in a case of Union of India Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited since reported in 2002(2) PLJR 695 and unreported judgment of this court Vide order passed in M.A. No. 353/2001 (Union of India Vs. 6. While assailing the findings, learned counsel for the appellant relying upon a decision of this court in a case of Union of India Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited since reported in 2002(2) PLJR 695 and unreported judgment of this court Vide order passed in M.A. No. 353/2001 (Union of India Vs. Ganesh Prasad Arya) dated 07.02.2002, which further stands confirmed by a Division Bench of this court on 16.04.2002 (Union of India Vs. Ganesh Prasad Arya), vehemently submitted that in spite of such endorsement required under section 65(2) of the Act on the Railway Receipt due to shortage in delivery of consignment the railway cannot disown his liability to compensate the loss. 7. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel representing respondent that in none of the decisions of this court relied upon by the appellant, earlier decision of this court in a case Union of India Vs. Chotelal Shivnath Rai reported in 1973 PLJR page 560(DB) and decision of Apex Court in a case of Hari Sao and Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar reported in AIR 1970 SC 843 = 1969(3) SCC 107 was noticed or taken into consideration and it is the appellant who in view of section 64 and 65 of the Act is to prove actual weight etc. of consignment but completely failed, so rightly denied any compensation. 8. The Railway Receipt is dealt with under section 65 of the Act which reads as such:– “65. Railway receipt.–(1) A railway administration shall,– (a) in a case where the goods are to be loaded by a person entrusting such goods, on the completion of such loading; or (b) in any other case, on the acceptance of the goods by it, issue a railway receipt in such form as may be specified by the Central Government. (2) A railway receipt shall be prima facie evidence of the weight and the number of packages stated therein: 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 authorized 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 be on the consignor, the consignee or the endorsee.” 9. In the case in hand, the Railway Receipt bearing signature under seal of the railway servant indicating that consignment was neither counted nor checked while being loaded directly from Truck to Wagon. This endorsement, under the Act alone makes the consigner liable to prove the actual loading, but, in the instant case no such effort appears made on behalf of the consigner appellant except an attempt is made by producing Beejuck to show that such articles were purchased and thereafter loaded, but as is evident from the substantive discussions made by the claim tribunal, such document is of no help to the consigner rather it not only goes otherwise but also creates doubt against its genuineness, bringing the claim of the appellant under dark cloud and it is unfortunate that no attempt is made to dilute even during hearing the appeal. 10. In the case of Union of India Vs. Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) the facts was a bit different, since production of Beejuck was not required in that case, the question of controversy between two documents did not arise, in spite of noticing there are conflicting judgments which is mentioned in para 6 which reads as such;– “………………decision of courts in this connection are conflicting and hence the decisions rendered in particular cases cannot constitute legal principle to be followed in all cases. So under particular facts and circumstances of the case the court shall be free to pass independent orders following principles of law as disclosed by particular provision of the Act. ………………..” 11. Thus, the above observation in the judgment relied upon itself is sufficient to say that it was a decision treated to be relevant for the particular case but not as a general principle. 12. And in the earlier unreported decision of this court subsequently confirmed in LPA (supra). Single Judge while dismissing the appeal preferred by Union of India in paragraph 6 of the judgment has observed that “furthermore, the tribunal has stated in the impugned judgment that there has been absence of evidence on the part of Indian Railway”. But, there is nothing of the kind in the case in hand. 13. A division Bench of this court in earlier case of Chotelal Shewnath Rai (supra) has considered the provision of section 72 of Railway Act, 1890 corresponding to section 64 of the Railway Act, 1989 which reads as such:– “64. But, there is nothing of the kind in the case in hand. 13. A division Bench of this court in earlier case of Chotelal Shewnath Rai (supra) has considered the provision of section 72 of Railway Act, 1890 corresponding to section 64 of the Railway Act, 1989 which reads as such:– “64. Forwarding note.–(1) Every person entrusting any goods to a railway administration for carriage shall execute a forwarding note in such form as may be specified by the Central Government: Provided that no forwarding note shall be executed in the case of such goods as may be prescribed. (2) The consignor shall be responsible for the correctness of the particulars furnished by him in the forwarding note. (3) The consignor shall indemnify the railway administration against any damage suffered by it by reason of the incorrectness or incompleteness of the particulars in the forwarding note.” And it is clearly held in paragraph 8 of the judgment that “8………………….the entry about the weight of the consignment mentioned in the railway receipt and the forwarding note are no admission of the railway department about the weight carried in that consignment because in the case before us the railway has not weighed the consignment at the dispatching station and the loading was done by the sender.” 14. The Apex court in a criminal matter arising out of decision of this Court relating to cheating etc. in the case of Hari Sao and another, taking into consideration the term S.W.A. i.e. ‘said to contain’ and the endorsement L/U has clearly observed in paragraph 7 of the judgment that “7……………… The endorsement ‘S.W.A.’ would negative the plea, if any, that the weight was accepted by the railway. The endorsement L/U” ” emphasized that the loading and unloading being in charge of the consignor the railway could not be held liable for any negligence in loading or unloading.” 15. In this context, decisions of Orissa High Court in a case of Union of India and another Vs. Aluminum Industries Ltd. since reported in AIR 1987 Orissa 152; Union of India Vs. Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Orissa reported in 1995 Orissa 298; may also be referred, wherein decisions in the case of Hari Sao (supra) and Union of India Vs. Chotelal Shewnath Rai (supra) have also been relied upon. 16. Aluminum Industries Ltd. since reported in AIR 1987 Orissa 152; Union of India Vs. Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Orissa reported in 1995 Orissa 298; may also be referred, wherein decisions in the case of Hari Sao (supra) and Union of India Vs. Chotelal Shewnath Rai (supra) have also been relied upon. 16. Finally to sum up the railway receipt produced in the case in hand is to be further examined and it also indicates that not only senders weight was accepted and stated earlier neither the consignment was counted nor verified but contents loaded directly from Truck to wagon. Here, it would not be out of place to mention that the consignor i.e. the appellant has tried to substantiate loading of number of packets and weight of the consignment by producing the Beejucks but unfortunately he failed to establish his claim since there are major inconsistencies as noticed by the tribunal between the two documents, as indicated above, especially as regard to weight and number of packets. There appears no need to repeat such vital discrepancies. But, finding no merit, all the appeals are hereby dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost.