1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.113/1997. Union of India. VERSUS The Gujrat State Fertilizers Limited. 2. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.800/1997. Union of India. VERSUS The Gujrat State Fertilizers Company Ltd. 26.02.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.S.S.Hasan, for the appellant-U.O.I. Mr.Deepak Goyal, for the respondent-Company. ***** These two appeals have been filed by the Union of India through the Chief Manager, Western Railway, Church Gate, Bombay against the award passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur whereby the claim preferred by the respondent on account of loss in transit and shortfall in the consignment at the destination point. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the present one is a case where the goods were loaded in the open box wagons at the siding of the respondent-Company and the RRs were prepared on the basis of “said to contain” certain quantity of goods. It was submitted that consignment was loaded under the supervision of the respondent and, therefore, the Railways-appellant cannot be saddled with the liability on account of the shortfall. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Company pointed out that in both these cases there is a distinction and the law relating to the avoidance of the liability by the Railways in the event of shortfall at the point of destination in cases of RRs issued on the basis of the “said to contain” where the loading has been done at the siding of the consignor under supervision of the consignor would be applied. It was pointed out which is not disputed by the appellant and as held by the learned Tribunal that enroute from the point of discharge to the point of destination, the consignment was handled in the presence of the appellant-Railways and transshipment was carried out. The claim of the respondent which has been allowed by the learned Tribunal is in respect of the shortfall in the quantity between the quantity which was found at the time of transshipment which was done in the presence of the appellant and difference between the quantity which reached the destination. I am of the view that the approach of the learned Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances, does not call for any interference as so far as the original quantity which was loaded in the wagons at the point in the Railway siding of the respondent-Company itself is concerned, that cannot be accepted as the loading was carried out not in the presence of the Railways- appellant but under the supervision of the respondent- Company and the Railways only issued the RR on the basis of “said to contain” and with the said remark. Once at the point of transshipment, the consignment 3 was handled enroute in the presence of the appellant, at least the quantity which was found in the consignment at the point of transshipment would be considered to be the quantity of the goods entrusted to the Railways-appellant and, therefore, any shortfall in the quantity less than one handled at the point of transshipment would have to be accounted for an compensated by the Railways. Since the learned Tribunal has in the impugned judgments has only awarded the compensation on account of this shortfall between the consignment which was accounted for at the point for transshipment and at the point of destination, the judgment of the learned Tribunal awarding compensation for the same does not call for any interference. Consequently, both these appeals filed by the appellant-Union of India fails and are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.