ORDER : This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 2.8.2013 passed in Case No. OA-I/RNC/2012/0008, whereby the claim, under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, for compensation for non-delivery of the goods worth Rs. 54,438/- was dismissed. The claimants' case is that on 20.04.2009, he had entrusted 59 wagons of slags at Slag Granulation Plant Siding-Bokaro Steel City Railway Station for transportation to SNFC, the serving station Pradhan Khunta. That the respondent-Railways had realized full freight for the consignment and on being satisfied regarding the weight had issued the receipt for the same. That on account of gross negligence of the Railways, two (2) wagons containing 65 quintals each did not arrive at the destination due to which the applicant/claimant sustained a loss of Rs. 54,438/- including the railway freight. The Railways sent the shortage certificate whereupon the applicant served the statutory notice claiming compensation of the aforesaid amount. Due to non-redressal of the grievance the claim for compensation was filed against the respondent/Railway. 2. Respondent-Railways filed the written statement stating that the loading was not supervised by the railway staff. That due to excessive and uneven loading by the consignor two wagons collapsed. That it was due to the negligence and wrongful act of the consignor the goods could not be delivered and the loss suffered by the claimant is due to his wrongful act consequently the respondent/railways are in no way responsible for the alleged shortage/non-delivery of the goods, and are not liable to pay the compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has submitted that the burden and onus lies on the respondent to prove that it was due to excess weight that the wagons had capsized. It is argued that Section 72 of the Railways Act, 1989 prescribes the maximum carrying capacity of the wagons and trucks. If, the goods are loaded in excess of the permissible weight, the punitive charges are to be levied under Section 73 of the Act. It is submitted that the respondent had issued the receipt on being satisfied that the loaded goods were within the prescribed weight. It is argued that Section 93 of the Railways Act, 1989 casts the responsibility on the Railways and the respondent-Railway cannot escape the liability to pay the compensation when the non-delivery of goods does not fall within the exception enumerated under (a) to (i) of Section 93. It is argued that Section 93 of the Railways Act, 1989 casts the responsibility on the Railways and the respondent-Railway cannot escape the liability to pay the compensation when the non-delivery of goods does not fall within the exception enumerated under (a) to (i) of Section 93. It is argued that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate and discuss the provisions of the Act in its correct perspective and has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application without considering the documents filed by the claimant. 4. Mr. V.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent/Railways has contended that the applicant suffered loss due to his own wrongful as the goods were in excess of the prescribed weight. The excess weight of the goods was the cause due to which the wagon collapsed. It is argued that the wrongful act and negligence of the applicant is covered under Exception (f) under Section 93, hence the Railways were liable to pay the compensation. It is argued that in terms of Section 65 of the Act, the Railways are not liable to pay the compensation. 5. Heard. On perusal of the impugned judgment and the records it is evident that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order on the basis of the written statement and argument advanced by the respondent/railways. It is noticed that neither the petitioner nor its counsel attended the Court. In such a situation as per the Code of Civil Procedure Order IX Rule 8 the Tribunal could at best dismiss the application for default of the applicant but the application could not be decided on merit that too in absence of the parties. The Tribunal has committed a manifest error by passing the judgment on the basis of pleading. In the attending facts and circumstances the judgment is not sustainable and is hereby set-aside. In the interest and for the ends of justice the matter is remitted to the Court below to decide it after giving a reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective pleadings. The Tribunal shall notice the parties and pass necessary order in accordance with law, at the earliest. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction the appeal is, hereby, allowed to the extent as indicated above. Appeal allowed.