JUDGMENT : R.P. DHOLARIA, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, whereby the present appellant-original plaintiff has challenged the judgment and order dated 15.10.1996 passed in Claim Application No. 1146 of 1990 (TA-I) by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. 2. Precisely, it was the claim of the appellant-plaintiff that the plaintiff dispatched the goods of soybean oil from Junagadh to Edgah on 10.12.1983. While the said goods was on transit, it was detained en-route specially in Sabarmati Yard and reached at the destination on 16.02.1984 after period of two months, during which period, the price of the goods had fallen down. Consequently, the consignee had not received the said goods. In the result, the consignor had to sell the goods in the market which realized Rs. 1,32,372.55 paise against the invoice price of Rs. 1,46,550/-. The plaintiff faced the loss of Rs. 14,177.55 paise and was also required to pay the bank interest to the extent of Rs.5,807/- and thus, in all, the plaintiff incurred damage of Rs. 19,984/-. That difference of price as well as payment of bank interest, the plaintiff claimed by preferring the aforesaid claim application before the learned Railway Claims Tribunal. 3. The learned Tribunal, after hearing learned advocates for the respective parties, dismissed the claim application inter-alia holding that as per Rule 108 of Goods Tariff, the Railway Administration does not take guarantee to dispatch the goods within any definite time. The learned Tribunal, in paragraphs 3 to 6 of the judgment, elaborately dealt with the reasons for dismissal of the claim application, which read as under:- “3. Learned CLA Shri A.B. Guatam has argued that the railway does not take guarantee to despatch the goods by particular train and also there is no guarantee of certain time schedule. Rule 108 of the Goods Tariff reads as follows:- “108. Despatch of goods by any particular train not guaranteed-Railways do not guarantee the despatch of goods by any particular train nor will they be responsible for the arrival of goods at any station within any definite time. 4. Further, railway is fully protected by the provision of Indian Railway Act. In this case Section 78(d) of I.R. Act, 1890 give adequate protection to the railway, which is as follow:- 78. 4. Further, railway is fully protected by the provision of Indian Railway Act. In this case Section 78(d) of I.R. Act, 1890 give adequate protection to the railway, which is as follow:- 78. Exoneration from responsibility in certain cases - Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, a railway administration shall not be responsible: (d) For any indirect or consequential damages or for loss of particular market.” 5. This is a case in which goods were offered for booking to the railway and the same was delivered to the party without loss, damage, destruction and deterioration. The applicant has claimed compensation on the ground that due to transit delay, the goods arrived at the destination late and in the meantime, there was a fall in the market rate of the goods and they suffered loss. Hence, they want railway to compensate them for loss. Such a case in our view is not tenable as already discussed above due to the fact that the railway has fulfilled its contract and delivered the goods intact without any loss, there being no guarantee of time limit in transit and the railway not being responsible for indirect loss if any. 6. The railway therefore cannot be compelled to pay compensation for fluctuation in the market rate on which the railway has no control. No doubt the consignment reached with some delay but for sheer delay the railway cannot be held responsible as the goods have been correctly delivered at the destination station. It is not the case of shortage or loss. Normally the market rate sometime goes up, in this case it has gone down. The railway cannot cope with vicissitude or market forces. Hence, the following order is passed:- ORDER: The claim application is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Haresh Patel for the appellant and learned advocate Ms. Archana Amin for the respondent. 5. Learned advocate for the appellant has argued that the damage caused to the appellant to the extent of Rs. 19,984/- is a direct result of untimely delivery on part of the Railway Administration, for which, the appellant could have been compensated. Learned advocate has relied upon the decisions in Bhavnagar Chemical Works vs. Union of India and Others, 1993 (2) GLH 432 and Union of India and Another vs. Abdulla Akbarali and Co. 19,984/- is a direct result of untimely delivery on part of the Railway Administration, for which, the appellant could have been compensated. Learned advocate has relied upon the decisions in Bhavnagar Chemical Works vs. Union of India and Others, 1993 (2) GLH 432 and Union of India and Another vs. Abdulla Akbarali and Co. 2000 (2) GLH 435 of this court. 6. On the above aspect, since the appellant has not produced any iota of evidence or any written contract between the parties stipulating any time schedule for delivery of the goods, Rule 108 of Goods Tariff is applied which clearly excludes the responsibility on part of the Railway Administration to dispatch the goods at particular destination within any definite time. 7. In view of aforesaid provisions of law, the delay occurred of about two months for delivery of goods at the destination would not be helpful to the appellant. Even otherwise also, there appears no dispute that the Railway Administration had dispatched the goods at the destination stipulated and there was no complaint as regards any loss or delivery of deficit goods. 8. Here, the question arises that as to whether the price decreased due to delay in delivery of goods could be the cause for awarding the damage or not. On that point also, in absence of any stipulation for timely delivery of goods between the parties, the damage would be counted as remote damage and the damage could not be awarded in view of clear provisions as envisaged under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 9. This Court has also gone through both the decisions cited by the appellant wherein there was a award of compensation as the Railway delivered the goods with shortage. Consequently, these decisions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, the appeal being devoid of merits deserves dismissal and is dismissed.