The plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to prove the shortage of material in a consignment, and documents presented as evidence must be admissible as per the law.

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. - This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below; whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

2. For convenience, the parties would be referred herein as the plaintiff and defendants; as they were referred in the original suit.

3. Stated in brief; the facts of this case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 14596.40 against the defendant No. 1, Northern Railways. It was pleaded in the suit that the plaintiff-Corporation had purchased pig iron weighing 56.650 MT vide invoice No. 1/21/4860 dated 20.03.1983 from Bhilai to Suranussi, Jalandhar. The material was consigned by defendant No. 2-Steel Authority of India Limited from Bhilai. The Railway had charged @1750/- per MT plus 4% Central Sales Tax on a total value of consignment of Rs. 1,03,103/-. The defendant No. 2 consigned the material to the plaintiff vide RR No. 758360 dated 28.03.1983 wagon No. 86527 from Bhilai to Suranussi. It was further averred that the consignment in question arrived at its destination very late and in damaged condition. On visual inspection, heavy shortage was suspected by the plaintiff. Therefore, a request was made to the Station Master of Railways for delivery of the consignment on weighment basis. However, the same was rejected. Under the circumstances, the delivery of the goods in question was taken under protest. Weighment of the consignment was done by independent surveyor M/s S.L.Passi & Co. with due notice to the Railways. However, on weighment the material was found to be short by 8.020 MT from the wagon. The plaintiff preferred claim under Section 78(B) of the Railway Act with the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Northern Railway, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 14596.40, being the cost of shortage of material plus CST. The plaintiff also issued reminder dated 14.08.1985. However, the defendant had not made the payment without any sufficient cause. Hence, the suit for recovery was filed.

4. On notice, the defendants filed separate written statements. The defendant No. 1-Railways, in its written statement, took routine preliminary objections. On merit, the claim of plaintiff was refuted. It was further averred that there was no delay in arrival of the consignment. The consignment was delivered to the plaintiff under clear receipt and signatures. It was averred that the defendant was not bound by any unilateral weighment done by the plaintiff. In fact, there was no shortage of material as alleged. The plaintiff had taken the delivery of consignment without any protest. Hence, the dismissal of suit was prayed for.

5. Parties led their evidence.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. While relying upon Rule 15 of Goods Tariff Act. The Trial Court held that mere issuance of railway receipt by the Railways does not amount to admission that the weight, shown in the receipt, has been received by the Railways or that the description of the goods as furnished by the consigner is correct. It was held by the Trial Court that the plaintiff has not led any evidence whatsoever to substantiate his claim that the material shown in the papers of the consignment was actually delivered to the Railways for carrying to Suranussi. Hence, the Trial Court held that it is not proved on record that the pig iron weighing 56.650 MT was actually loaded in the railway wagon at Bhilai Railway Station. Regarding the witnesses examined by the plaintiff, the Trial Court held that admittedly, these witnesses were not present at the Bhilai when the material was loaded in the railway wagon. Hence, the testimony does not show that the material weighing 56.650 MT was actually loaded and handed over to the Railways. Still further, the Trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff had received the goods under clear receipts and n