THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.136 of 2000 JUDGMENT: The respondent filed O.A.No.667 of 1993 before the Secunderabad Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal, against the appellant, claiming the cost of shortage of 0.520 Metric Tonnes of steel channels, which were given to the appellant, for consignment under R.R.No.228599. It was pleaded that, there was short supply of the quantity, referred to above, and that it is entitled to be paid the compensation therefor. The appellant opposed the application, on several grounds. Through its order, dated 13.08.1999, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,670/-, representing the cost of shortage of the material. The same is challenged in this C.M.A. Heard Sri C.Venkata Malla Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. The main point urged on behalf of the appellant is that the Tribunal did not take into account, the purport of Section 94 of the Railways Act. According to that provision, if any consignment is to be delivered by the railway administration at a siding not belonging it, it shall not be responsible for any loss, or non-delivery of such consignment. In the instant case, the material was unloaded at a siding owned by the respondent. Though it appears that this point was not specifically raised, the Tribunal ought to have taken it into account. At any rate, the appellant and the respondent are, both, central Government organizations. The mechanism is provided for adjustment, or adjudication, of their claims. Viewed from any angle, the order under appeal cannot be sustained in law. The C.M.A. is accordingly allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:19.08.2009. GJ