The Railway Authorities never accepted the weight indicated by the sender in the R.R. the forwarding note and the railway receipt indicate that the consignments were booked with the remark 'said to contain'. Despite encashment of cheques issued by the Railways in full and final satisfaction of the claim, the appellant is not entitled to insist upon payment of balance amount.

The appellant has preferred these appeals against the decisions of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, rejecting a part of claim in each of the different applications. All the appeals, the controversy being circumscribed on common question of law and fact are proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment. The appeals have been filed for recovery of the amount as indicated below:-

(i) M.A.(F) No. 68 of 1994 Rs. 11,592/-

(ii) M.A.(F) No. 69 of 1994 Rs.22,931/-

(iii) M.A.(F) No. 70 of 1994 Rs.34,182/-

(iv) M.A.(F) No. 71 of 1994 Rs.12,338/-

(v) M.A.(F) No. 72 of 1994 Rs.24,267/-

(vi) M.A.(F) No. 73 of 1994 Rs.40,544/-

(vii) M.A.(F) No. 74 of 1994 Rs.l 7,096/-

(viii) M.A.(F) No. 75 of 1994 Rs.15,091/-

(ix) M.A.(F) No. 76 of 1994 Rs. 11,5777/-

and

(x) M.A.(F) No. 77 of 1994 Rs.7,198/-

2. The above claims in different applications have been rejected on the ground that the rice booked at the booking station was not weighed by the Railway staff and the weight indicated by the sender was accepted only for the purpose of calculation of freight. The learned Tribunal allowed only the cost of rice found short between the transshipment point and destination. The reasons given by the Tribunal are quoted herein below:

"The Applicant had rested its claim upon short and damaged delivery of consignment in question. Quo ad hoc, the shortage and damage has already been conceded by the respondent No.1 vide Paras 2.5 of the reply. As is evident from the Forwarding Note on record as also from Railway Receipt that the entire consignment was booked with "Said to contain" remarks which gives out that it was not weighed at the booking point and senders weight was accepted by the Railway Administration which also finds place on the body of the Railway Receipt. With such factual position on record, 'the Railway Administration was held to have not incurred any additional liability of delivering back the same quantity of the consignment in weight as was held in Harisao and another-Vs-the State of Bihar reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court No. 843. It is the case of Railway Administration that the entire consignment was loaded by the Consignor from truck to wagon and the loading was not supervised by the Railway staff which is manifest from the perusal of Railway Receipt. However, the words "Directly loaded from truck to wagon" was denied to have been written by the Consignor but since the applicant had not objected to such remarks over Railway Receipt, the pendulum swings in favour of the respondent - Railway and a denial simpjiciter would not be tenable to serve for the Applicant. However, the weighing of consignment By respondent No. 1 at transhipment point has to be taken as actual weight to which the respondent No.1 bore accountability although there has been absence of weighment at the booking station and Sender's weight having been accepted which obviously is resorted to for the calculation of freight, the Railway Administration cannot be burdened with the additional liability of accounting for shortage of weight found at the transhipment point."

3. It would appear from the above that the Railway Authorities never accepted the weight indicated by the sender in the R.R. the forwarding note and the railway receipt indicate that the consignments were booked with the remark "said to contain". According to learned Tribunal, this remark is sufficient enough to conclude that the bags of rice were not weighed at the booking point. Therefore, the learned Tribunal relied upon the shortage found between the weighment done at the transhipment point and the destination point. In view of the above remark in the R.R., the Tribunal appears to have rightly rejected the claim of the appellant.

4. Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel sought to impress upon the Court that the findings of the learned Tribunal is not supported by evidence on record and the weighment done by the Railway at the transhipment point ought not to have been accepted and acted u