JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant/ N.F. Railways. Also heard Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent. 2. The judgment and order dated 19-07-2010 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in claim application No. O.A. 33/2006 is under challenge in the present petition. The respondent in this case was the consignee of 31,150 bags of common salt booked at Bhimsagar (BMSR) Railway Station for delivery to Dharmanagar (DMRL) Railway Station under Invoice Nos. 1 to 4 corresponding to R.R. No. 155223 to 155226 all dated 05-01-2005. After delivery of the consignment, a delivery certificate dated 17-12-2005 was issued by the Railway at the destination station wherefrom it transpires that there was shortage of 3163 number of bags of salt. 3. Claiming that there was shortage of delivery of salt bags due to negligence of Railways, the respondent, as claimant, had issued notice under Section 106 of the Railway Act, 1989 seeking compensation. When the said notice was not responded to, the claimant had filed the claim application, which was allowed by the learned tribunal by directing the Railways to make payment of an amount of Rs. 4,68,124/- as compensation for non delivery of as many as 3163 bags of common salt @ Rs. 148 per bag. 4. Referring to the impugned judgment Mr. B. Sarma has submitted that the salt bags were admittedly booked under “said to contain” rate. Therefore, in this case loading and unloading did not take place under the supervision of the Railway Authority but those bags were loaded directly from the trucks to the wagon and the consignor’s weight was accepted only for the purpose of determination of freight charges. Under the circumstances, submits Mr. Sarma, it was incumbent upon the respondent to prove by leading cogent evidence, the number of bags which were actually loaded in the wagons so as to make out any claim for payment of compensation on account of short delivery of the consignment. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case, although no such finding has been recorded, yet, the learned Tribunal has held that there was short supply of 3163 bags of salt and issued a direction for payment of compensation. 5. Relying upon a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case, although no such finding has been recorded, yet, the learned Tribunal has held that there was short supply of 3163 bags of salt and issued a direction for payment of compensation. 5. Relying upon a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. M/s P.P. Enterprise (MFA No. 43/2013) and batch of connected petitions, Mr. Sarma submits that dealing with an issue of similar nature, the learned Single Judge had held that the burden to prove the actual quantum of goods that were loaded in the wagon/ train would lie upon the claimant and to discharge the said burden, the claimant would be required to lead evidence so as to succeed with the claim for compensation. 6. Ms. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the fact that ratio laid down in the case of M/s P.P. Enterprise (Supra) would be applicable to the facts of this case but she submits that although there were sufficient materials brought on record by the respondent to establish the actual number of salt bags that were loaded in the wagon, yet, such materials were not considered by the learned Tribunal. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the event this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order then the matter be remanded back for fresh decision by the learned Tribunal after considering all the materials available on record. 7. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order it is established beyond doubt that the learned Tribunal had not recorded any finding of fact as to the actual number of salt bags that were loaded in the wagon. Notwithstanding the same, the claim of the respondent that 3163 bags of salt were found short at the destination was accepted and compensation was awarded. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of M/s P.P. Enterprise (Supra), I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is unsustainable in the eye of law and the same is accordingly, set aside. 8. Taking note of the submission of Ms. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of M/s P.P. Enterprise (Supra), I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is unsustainable in the eye of law and the same is accordingly, set aside. 8. Taking note of the submission of Ms. Sarma that sufficient materials were available on record so as to record a finding of fact as to the actual number of wagons that were loaded by the consignee in this case, I deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the claim petition after considering the evidence available on record, in its entirety. In doing so, it would be open for the parties to file appropriate application seeking leave to adduce additional evidence, if so advised. With the above observation, this appeal stands disposed of. Send back the LCR.