ORDER : 1. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 preferred by N.F. Railways challenging the judgment and award dated 30.07.2007 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal at Guwahati in O.A. No. 459/2000. By that judgment, the learned Tribunal directed the railway authorities to make payment of compensation to the claimant respondent to the tune of Rs. 71,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum if the payment is not made within a period of 60 days from the date of order. 2. Respondent M/s Sunrise Traders filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal at Guwahati stating that it is owner of 951 packets of onion booked in safe, sound and secured condition meeting all legal formalities as per railway rules at Manmad Railway Station in Maharastra. The consignment was booked by Maharastra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited for delivery at New Guwahati. The booking was made on 20/22.03.2000 and same was delivered on 04.04.2000 whereupon it was found that the wagon doors were kept open, wagon roof was leaky and also water marked condition on the roofs and side walls. The consignment was found wet damaged and in rotten condition emitting foul smell. Wagon seals were absent and on unloading of 441 packets of onion were found to be in total damaged condition. The claimant, therefore, claimed Rs. 99,960/- for 14280 Kg of onions at the rate of Rs. 7/- per Kg. 3. Upon receipt of such claim petition, O.A. No. 459/2000 was registered and notices were issued to the N.F. Railway who appeared and submitted written statement on 21.03.2002. In paragraph 3 of the reply the N.F. Railway claimed that the wagon holding the onion consignment arrived at destination station with original seals and rivets intact condition without any interference enroute. Rather, the alleged damage to the goods was due to loading of already damaged goods by the sender at forwarding station and as such respondent is not at all liable for any compensation. Subsequently, on 17.07.2007 an additional written statement was submitted stating that the railway receipt shows that ‘said to contain’ clause would apply to the consignment and that it was a case of direct loading from truck to wagon. Subsequently, on 17.07.2007 an additional written statement was submitted stating that the railway receipt shows that ‘said to contain’ clause would apply to the consignment and that it was a case of direct loading from truck to wagon. It was further mentioned that doors of the wagon were kept open at the specific request of the sender at his own risk as regard to pilferages. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the Railway Claims Tribunal framed as many as 4 (four) issues as follows:- 1. Whether the applicant proves that he has got the proper title to file application for compensation? 2. Whether the applicant proves that 951 bags of onion was booked under Inv/RR No. 258/578004 dated 20/22.03.2000 in good condition? 3. Whether the applicant proves that 441 bags of onion were found in damaged condition and cost is Rs. 99,960/-? 4. Relief, if any? 4. Neither of the parties led any evidence but they placed their respective records. It appears that Railway produced some records containing the forwarding note, the true copy of the report of the train examiner and the railway receipt to the Tribunal for perusal. 5. Upon consideration of these materials, the learned Tribunal passed impugned judgment and award on 30.07.2007 holding that the applicant proved that he got proper authority to file the application for compensation as the Maharastra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Mumbai served and endorsed to the claimant who is applicant in the present case. The issue No. 1 was accordingly decided in favour of the claimant. Issue No. 2 was decided by holding that as per forwarding note by the respondent N.F. Railway, there were 951 packets of onion booked by the consignor on 20/22.03.2000. Accordingly, issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the claimant. Issue No. 3 is in regard to damaged condition of 441 bags and the price thereof. Considering the delivery certificate-cum- A/D report dated 04.04.2000 placed and records of the Railway, the Tribunal arrived at the finding that 951 packets of onion were received by the Railway out of which 441 packets of 40 Kg each was found in damaged condition including 400 packets badly and 41 packets partly. Considering the delivery certificate-cum- A/D report dated 04.04.2000 placed and records of the Railway, the Tribunal arrived at the finding that 951 packets of onion were received by the Railway out of which 441 packets of 40 Kg each was found in damaged condition including 400 packets badly and 41 packets partly. Bad smell were coming out from the onion packets and on the assessment, 400 bags were found damaged to the extent of 85% and 41 bags were found damaged to the extent of 70% and thus 357 bags found net short due to damage. The Tribunal noticed that claimant demanded Rs. 7/- per Kg but failed to produce beejuk and so the Tribunal accepted Rs. 5/- per Kg as reasonable rate and accordingly assessed the claim to Rs. 71,400/-. Under issue No. 4, the Tribunal considered that repudiation of claims on damage by wet on the ground such as ‘said to contain’ RR, ‘loading direct from truck to wagon’ or ‘loading not supervised’ are relevant only in cases of shortage and not in cases of damage by wet and this findings were arrived at on the basis of Railway notification issued to all Zonal Railways by Railway Board’s letter dated 25.05.1977. Accordingly, it was held that Railway is not entitled to benefit under the clause of ‘said to contain’ and so it was liable to compensation of Rs. 71,400/-. This judgment and award passed on 30.07.2007 has been called in question in the present appeal. 6. I have heard Ms. B Devi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A Goyal, learned counsel for the sole respondent. 7. Ms. B Devi submits that the finding of the learned Tribunal as to damage of 400 bags of onion is not based on materials on record and even calculation of compensation by presuming price of Rs. 5/- has no basis. According to her, the wagon was received at destination station with seal and rivet intact condition (for shor, SRI) and so there was no negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways. Rather since it is a case of ‘said to contain’, the claimant was duty bound to prove that the goods were booked in good condition and damage had taken place while the same was inside the wagon. Rather since it is a case of ‘said to contain’, the claimant was duty bound to prove that the goods were booked in good condition and damage had taken place while the same was inside the wagon. The claimant did not lead any evidence to prove that the goods were booked in good condition and accordingly it forfeited its right to any compensation, she argued. 8. Per contra, Mr. A Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant, would argue that the basic case of the claimant is that the wagon was found in open condition. There was no seal or card label in the wagon and such a stand was specifically taken in the claim petition itself. The Railway having denied this statement vide paragraph 3 of their first written statement was duty bound to produce the seal and card label in terms of Rule 1714 of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual Volume II. He has also placed reliance on a judgment of this court in the case of Union of India vs. Amba Industries, (2013) 2 GLR 727. In paragraph 8 of this judgment this court observed that Railway having failed to prove documents like seal and card labels it is not possible to hold that the wagons were received in SRI condition. Under such circumstances, the aforesaid appeal of the N.F. Railway was dismissed by this court. 9. To understand the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the lower court records including the respective pleadings and the documents placed on record by the N.F. Railway. The claim petition discloses that 441 bags of onion were found in damaged condition and it was further noticed that the wagon door was kept open and seal was not intact. This allegation labeled in the claim petition has been specifically denied by the N.F. Railway in paragraph 3 of their first written statement. But having made this statement in paragraph 3 of the written statement, N.F. Railway did not produce the seal and card label which is supposed to have been preserved at least for 6 (six) months by the N.F. Railway. As pointed out in the earlier judgment of this court that failure on the part of the N.F. Railway to produce seal and card labels would result in adverse presumption against the N.F. Railway. As pointed out in the earlier judgment of this court that failure on the part of the N.F. Railway to produce seal and card labels would result in adverse presumption against the N.F. Railway. It is a fact that had the wagon been received in good and sealed condition in that event, this could have been proved by the production of seal and card label. The seal and the card label are supposed to be in the custody of the N.F. Railway at least for a period of 6 (six) months from the date of delivery. This is a requirement of Rule 1714 of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual Volume II. This provision is quoted below:- “1714. Preservation of seals and labels. Seals and labels should be carefully preserved for six months and then destroyed, but in the case of shortage from wagons or any dispute or claim, they should be submitted with the missing and damaged goods report from Com./D-1 Rev.” 10. Once it is found that the proof as to SRI condition of the wagon was in the custody of the N.F. Railway and that the same was not produced to the Tribunal for examination, adverse presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act has to be taken against the Indian Railways to arrive at the finding that the wagon was not in SRI condition. Under such circumstances, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding the N.F. Railway responsible for making payment of compensation. 11. Ms. B Devi, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that there was no proof as to damage of 441 bags of onion. Learned Tribunal has arrived at the finding that 441 bags of onion were in damage condition, is made out by the delivery certificate -cum- assessment delivery report. The delivery certificate/ assessment delivery report has been placed on record by the N.F. Railway and it shows that 400 bags of onion were badly damaged and 41 bags of onion were partly damaged. This assessment of damage has been made by none other than the Railway Authorities and so appellant is not entitled to make argument at this stage that there was no damage at all to the goods. At this, Mr. This assessment of damage has been made by none other than the Railway Authorities and so appellant is not entitled to make argument at this stage that there was no damage at all to the goods. At this, Mr. A Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent, places reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of M/S Shree Gopal Enterprises vs. Union of India. This is an unreported judgment of this court delivered on 23.03.2012. In that judgment, this court has arrived at the finding that issuance of short certificate by the Railway Authority would mean that Railway Authority accepted the short delivery of the consignment. This is because under section 74 of the Railways Act, 1989, the property in consignment covered by a railway receipt has to be passed to the consignee or the endorsee, as the case may be, and on the delivery of such receipt to him, he shall have all rights and liabilities of consignor. In the case in hand, issuance of damage certificate is not in dispute. Rather, this document has been placed on record by the N.F. Railway itself. Ms. B Devi submits that although damage certificate was issued by the Railway Authority, it was mentioned at the bottom of the letter that it is without prejudice. But in reply to the pointed question, Ms. B Devi could not say as to whether such certificate issued by the railway was false or incorrect. Facts remain that damage certificate was issued by the N.F. Railway and so the same is binding on it. 12. Having so found, it appears that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in arriving at a finding under issue No. 3 holding that 441 bags of onion were in damaged condition. The only thing which was left for decision of the Tribunal was to make an assessment of the compensation. True, the claimant could not produce beejuck to show the purchase rate of the onion. Under such circumstances, the learned Tribunal presumed the price to be Rs. 5/- per Kg as reasonable rate. Some amount of guess work is permissible by a Claims Tribunal when the basic facts are on record. In the case of Chain Sukh Jain vs. Union of India, (2003) 3 GLR 267, this court held that guess work is a must for disposal of the case in absence of complete evidence. 5/- per Kg as reasonable rate. Some amount of guess work is permissible by a Claims Tribunal when the basic facts are on record. In the case of Chain Sukh Jain vs. Union of India, (2003) 3 GLR 267, this court held that guess work is a must for disposal of the case in absence of complete evidence. Here in this case, damage of 441 bags of onion is an established fact. The only question is what should be correct price of the damaged onion has not been proved by the claimant. This is why, the learned Tribunal took a pragmatic view and made a guess work that each kilogram of onion costs Rs. 5/- which does not appear to be absurd. Even in the present memorandum of appeal, no specific ground has been taken questioning the correctness of the guess work as to reasonable rate of each kilogram of onion. Having so situated, none of the findings of the learned Tribunal can be interfered with in exercise of appellate power. Consequently, this appeal is found to be devoid of any merit. The appeal stands dismissed. 13. No order as to costs. 14. Interim order, if any, stands automatically vacated.