JUDGMENT : Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. The present group of First Appeal is filed by the appellant-original opponent through General Manager, Western Railway being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and decree passed in respective Claim Applications by the Railway Claim Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench all dated 06.12.2001 on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal inter alia that the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence on record. It is also contended that loading and unloading was to be done by the parties and not by the Railway and whatever has been stated and entered in the forwarding note by the sender was stated in R.R. Therefore it is contended that there is no shortage of goods due to the negligence or misconduct of the Railway Administration. It has also been contended that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the Railway Authority is not bound to entertain the claim on the basis of the private re-weighment and the panchnama not witnessed by the Railway Staff cannot be relied upon. It is contended that as per Section 79 of the Railway Act read with Rule 305 of Goods Tariff, when the consignment is booked at owner's risk rate, re-weighment of coal consignment is not permitted. 2. Heard learned advocate, Ms. Reeta Chandarana for the appellant. 3. Learned advocate, Ms. Chandarana referred to the papers and also details with regard to each matters for the date of booking, goods i.e. premium hard coke with weight and shortage after referring to the observations in the judgment and decree. She has also referred to the papers and the written statement, which was filed before the Tribunal to support her contention that consignment were delivered to the original applicant (the respondent herein) without any qualifying remarks in the delivery book. Therefore, it was contended that there was no shortage in the consignment as alleged. She has also referred to Section 79 of the Railway Act read with Rule 305 of the Goods Tariff and submitted that as the consignments were booked as owner's risk rate, the consignment arrived at destination without any delay, would not require any re-weighment and it is not permissible. She emphasized Rule 305 of the Goods Tariff, which provide, "Coal and coke booked at Owner's risk will not be weighed". Therefore, learned advocate, Ms. She emphasized Rule 305 of the Goods Tariff, which provide, "Coal and coke booked at Owner's risk will not be weighed". Therefore, learned advocate, Ms. Chandarana submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate this relevant provision and the procedure and, therefore, the present appeals may be allowed. Learned advocate, Ms. Chandarana also submitted that re-weighment made at the private place without the presence of the authorized person of the Railway, would not be relevant for the purpose of making any claim for the shortage. She submitted that there could be any defect in the weigh-bridge as it is not properly run and, therefore, it is not authorized by the Government and, therefore, it could have been relied upon. She, therefore, submitted that even the panchnama also cannot be readily accepted. 4. Learned advocate, Shri Shah, however, referred to earlier order passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 4365/1999 and allowed dated 06.02.2017 and submitted that in this group of matters, issue regarding re-weighment charges under Rule 118 of Goods Tariff was considered. He submitted that as per Rule 118 of the Goods Tariff, Railway do not undertake to weigh consignment at the destination as a matter of facts. He, therefore, submitted that reading provision of Rule 118 read with Rule 305 of the Goods Tariff would suggest that if the consignment is not weighed for the purpose of shortage, the parties have no option but to go to the private person for re-weighment. Therefore, when the Railway refused to weigh, the Tribunal has considered this aspect. Learned advocate, Shri Shah submitted that on the basis of material and evidence, the Tribunal has made aware with regard to the shortage. 5. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present First Appeals deserve consideration or not. 6. It is evident that the original applicants, the respondent herein have applied for delivery after re-weighment to the Railway Authorities. However, the Railway Authorities declined to concede any such request without any reason. Therefore, the original applicant, the respondent herein had intimated the appellant herein in writing to get the re-weighment carried out by the private surveyor for the purpose of shortage. Therefore the submissions which have been made for re-weighment without the presence of the authorized representative of the Railway Administration, is misconceived. Therefore, the original applicant, the respondent herein had intimated the appellant herein in writing to get the re-weighment carried out by the private surveyor for the purpose of shortage. Therefore the submissions which have been made for re-weighment without the presence of the authorized representative of the Railway Administration, is misconceived. Though Rule provides that normally it will not be done but when a specific request is made, the Railway Administration cannot refuse taking a shelter under such Rule, which is loaded in favour of the Administration. Moreover as observed in the judgment, the appellant, original respondent has not produced any evidence to show that how they handled consignment in question when it was in the custody and control of the Railway Administration. Further, it has been clearly observed that inspite of the request made by the claimants, there was no response from the Railway Administration regarding re-weighment. Thus it has been observed that when sufficient and genuine efforts were made to get consignment re-weighed, the appellant rejected the request without any authority or reason. It is in this circumstance, when there is evidence placed on record with regard to the shortage, the claim cannot be denied and the Railway having refused to re-weighment even though the weigh-bridge was working, cannot take shelter of such Rule that such re-weighment is not permissible. The provision of Section 63 of the Railways Act provides, "63. Provision of risk rates.-- (1) Where any goods are entrusted to a railway administration for carriage, such carriage shall, except where owner's risk rate is applicable in respect of such goods, be at railway risk rate. (2) Any goods, for which owner's risk rate and railway risk rate are in force, may be entrusted for carriage at either of the rates and if no rate is opted, the goods shall be deemed to have been entrusted at owner's risk rate." 7. Therefore reading this provision of Section 63 read with Section 79 of the Railways Act and the Rules, the submissions made by learned advocate, Ms. Chandarana, cannot be sustained. Therefore reading this provision of Section 63 read with Section 79 of the Railways Act and the Rules, the submissions made by learned advocate, Ms. Chandarana, cannot be sustained. The submission that as it was a private weigh-bridge, it could be defective, also cannot be accepted as it was offered and requested that person may be deputed by the Railway Administration, which was not accepted and, therefore, it is now not open to contend that private weigh-bridge could be defective and, therefore, shortage may not be considered. Having regard to the aforesaid provision, if the Railway Administration does not provide for re-weighment and when the private weigh-bridge is available, it could not be presumed that merely because it is a private weigh-bridge, it would be defective and if the Railway Administration had deputed the officer or the representative, it could have been measured in their presence, which would have removed any such doubt. The element of fairness and principle of equality would justify the claim made on the basis of actual shortage of the goods, which has been considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree does not call for any interference. 8. The present First Appeals deserve to be dismissed and accordingly stand dismissed. Appeal Dismissed