JUDGMENT
P.K. Misra, J.
1. In this appeal Under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, the Union of India has challenged the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal directing payment of Rs. 9, 374/- as compensation to the Steel Authority of India, Ltd.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows :
The claimant-respondent had despatched a consignment of 47.000 M.T. of 32 mm. m.s. rounds from Bhilai to Bhubaneswar. The consignment reached Bhubaneswar on 2.1.1990. The respondent wanted delivery of goods by weighment. However, as there was no facility for weighment of goods, the Railway authorities advised that the consignment should be taken to Talcher where there was facility of weighment and, thereafter delivery would be effected. The Steel Authority of India while declining to accept such proposal before taking delivery, requested the Railway authorities to depute an authorised person to remain present at the time of weighment near the siding but the Railway authorities did not co-operate and the Steel Authority got the same weighed by a Survyor and it was found that there was shortage. Thereafter, notice was issued and ultimately claim application was filed. The Tribunal accepting the report of the Surveyor regarding the shortage has directed for payment of compensation.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that in the absence of any proof regarding the quantity booked at the station of origin,it cannot be assumed that 47.000 MT had been booked. In support of such contention, the counsel has placed reliance on the decision reported in AIR 1987Orissa 149(Unionof India v. Aluminium Industries Limited).
4. It appears that in the present case it was categorically stated in the claim application that 47.000 M.T. of M.S. rounds had been consigned, yet there is no specific denial in the written statement in reply to such averment. In the written statement the only contention which was raised was that the consignment had been delivered under clear receipt. Since there was no specific challenge, it must be taken that 47.000 M.T. of M.S. rounds had been booked.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant then contended that the delivery was effected under a clear receipt and if the respondent wanted for weighment of the quantity, it should have accepted the offer of taking the consignment to Talcher for the purpose of weighment. As rightly observed by the Tribunal if the consignment would have been taken to Talcher, the respondent would have been required to bear additional expenditure. On the other hand, it appears that the respondent had requested that an Officer should be deputed for the purpose of weighment being made in presence of such Officer. However, for reasons best known to the Railway authorities such a course was not followed. The Tribunal has accepted the certificate of the Surveyor regarding the shortage. There appears to be no reason to jettison the reasonings of the Tribunal on this aspect.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.