JUDGMENT Rekha Mittal, J. - This order will dispose of FAO Nos. 968 to 1010, 2632 to 2637 & 3289 of 1999, 240 & 241 of 2000 and 1904, 1908, 2108, 988, 1682, 1683, 1684, 1685, 1686, 1687, 1963, 1964, 2323, 2324, 2325, 2326, 2327, 2313 of 2001 as identical questions of law and fact are involved for adjudication. For facility of reference, facts are taken from FAO No. 2633 of 1999. 2. Counsel for the appellant would argue that consignments of pig iron were entrusted to the railway administration on different dates against different RRs for carriage ex-bokaro and Rourkela for delivery at Dhandari Kalan. The consignments, were booked at railways' risk and weighment was witnessed by the railways staff. At destination, on visual inspection by the Field Officer of the Punjab Small Scale Industries and Export Corporation (handling agency of the appellant), shortage in the material was suspected and the railways were requested for re-weighment before delivery but the same was declined. The appellant then got reweighment done from an independent surveyor to find out shortage in the consignments. Thereafter, notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act was served upon the respondent for making good the loss. Since the claims were not settled, the appellant was constrained to file claim application(s) before the Tribunal for compensation. 3. Counsel would further argue that since the railway authorities did not agree for re-weighment of consignments before delivery, there was no option with the appellant except to get the delivered materials reweighed from an independent surveyor to find out the shortage. It is further argued that even if the appellant had not issued any notice to the railways calling upon to send a representative on its behalf for associating the reweighment proceedings by independent surveyor, the respondents cannot escape liability to pay compensation for short delivery. 4. Counsel representing the respondents, on the contrary, has supported the award whereby application(s) for grant of compensation has been rejected. It is vehemently argued that weighment, if any, done by surveyor of the appellant without notice to the railways amounts to finding alleged shortage unilaterally, therefore, the Railway Claims Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application(s) for grant of compensation. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the award. It is vehemently argued that weighment, if any, done by surveyor of the appellant without notice to the railways amounts to finding alleged shortage unilaterally, therefore, the Railway Claims Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application(s) for grant of compensation. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the award. A relevant extract therefrom, reads as follows:- While the applicant company was well within its right to get the consignments surveyed through an independent surveyor, at the same time, it was also imperative that the respondent-railway administration should have been associated in the reweighment process. On perusal of records of each case, we find that there is a copy of letter written by the handling agents of applicant company to the respondent railway administration for deputing their representative for witnessing the reweighment of the consignments, but the applicant has not led any evidence to prove if these letters were actually sent to the respondent-railway administration. Even in the written statement also, the respondent-railway administration has taken this plea that no notice was given to them for witnessing the alleged re-weighment by the surveyor and the applicant has not controverted this plea by filing any replication. 6. Further held in para 8, reads thus:- It transpires that the applicant did not make any request to the respondent-railway administration for witnessing the alleged re-weighment by the independent surveyor and the survey reports being unilateral, cannot be relied upon to come at a conclusion that there was any shortage in the consignments in question. The alleged shortage in the consignments in question, therefore, is not proved and the applicant is not entitle to have any compensation from the respondent-railway administration. 7. Counsel for the appellant has not disputed correctness of the factual findings recorded by the Tribunal. That being so, it becomes undisputed position of the case that no notice was issued to the railways to associate at the time of re-weighment of consignments by the so called independent surveyor appointed by the appellant or its handling agency. In the given circumstances, the question for consideration is whether the report prepared by surveyor appointed by the appellant qua re-weighment of consignments can be held binding against the railways in order to fasten liability to pay damages for shortage. 8. In the given circumstances, the question for consideration is whether the report prepared by surveyor appointed by the appellant qua re-weighment of consignments can be held binding against the railways in order to fasten liability to pay damages for shortage. 8. If such a plea of the appellant is accepted, it would amount to allowing a claim based upon document(s) prepared in breach of principles of natural justice. The matter would have been different had the appellant served a notice upon the railways requesting for deputing a representative at the time of re-weighment of consignments by surveyor appointed by the appellant or its handling agency and the railways had failed to respond to the notice issued by the consignor. Since in the present case, the appellant has failed to establish that any such notice was actually sent to the railway administration, it is difficult to accept contention of the appellant that findings recorded by the Tribunal suffer from an error much less perversity, warranting intervention. 9. No other point has been raised. 10. In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore, finding no merit, the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.