Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-The core question which arises for consideration in all these 19 appeals is as to whether consignment booked under a “said to contain” railway receipt, amounts to admission on the part of the railway administration, that the said number of articles had in fact were loaded?

.2. This question has emerged in the following circumstances:

.(i) The claimants respondents (for short the claimants) had filed claim application before Railway claims Tribunal Jaipur Bench (for short the Tribunal) for short delivery of the number of bags of cotton seeds Husk mentioned in each application, on account of the negligence of the Railway. The Railway administration admitted booking particulars and issuance of short certificates but pleaded that the short certificates were issued without prejudice and the Railway Receipts bear the remark “said to contain and whatever loaded was delivered to the claimants at the destination.

.(ii) There was a difference of opinion between the two members of the Tribunal, therefore the matters were referred to third member (judicial), who concurred the earlier view expressed by member (judicial). Thus, the majority Judgment was delivered in favour of the claimants by members (judicial) of the-Tribunal, against which present action for filing these appeals has been resorted to.

3. Mr. M. Rafiq learned Counsel for the Union of India (for short UOI) vigorously canvassed that the abbreviations like “said to contain”, “L/U”, ‘SWA’ are commonly accepted in the Railway. The concept of said to contain’ has been accepted not only by proviso to Section 65 of the Railways Act but also by Rule 1529 (b) of the Commercial Manual. The Tribunal was wholly unjustified in accepting the claim of the claimants merely on the basis of shortage certificate, which in the instant case could not in any manner prove the fact as to what quantity of goods were despatched/loaded when the consignment was initially entrusted to the Railways for carriage. The onus of proving the quantity and contents of consignments, was upon the claimants which they failed to discharge. The Railway receipts were prepared on the basis of the statements made by the consignor in the forwarding Notes and it was on the basis of the statements that entries in the outward Tally Books were made. All these facts were conclusively proved by the affidavits of Shri R. K. Berwa and Shri L. Nageshwar Rao.

.4. Second limb of arguments of Mr. Rafiq the learned Counsel is that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the Principal Rules and Procedure for the Preferment and Disposal of Claims for Compensation and Refunds of Railways 1980 (for short ‘the Rules 1980’) issued by the Ministry of Railways in its para 6, provided that in addition to the description, marks, weight, freight charges etc., for which specific columns are provided in the Railway Receipt, the remarks arc incorporated in the said receipt.

.--L/U indicates that loading and unloading is to be performed by the sender and consignee, respectively.

--ORlRR- indicates that the freight has been charged at owner’s risk rate or railway risk rate.

--SC--indicates that a “said to contain” railway receipt is issued when the loading is not supervised by

the Railway Staff and the contents and/or number of packages is not known to the railway.

--SWA--indicates that the sender’s weight is accepted for the purpose of calculation of freight at the

forwarding station, but it does not preclude the Railway from weighing consignment at destination and

charging according to the weight found.

These definitions proved by the Rules of 1980 have the support of Section 65 of the Railways Act. In

view of this the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is wholly unjustified.

5. Third limb of arguments of the learned Counsel is that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that no compensation could be ordered to be paid since the claims had fallen within the exception Clause (f) of Section 93 of the Railways Act 1989 as i