Guman Singh, J. - (1.) THESE appeals, under Section 23 of Railways Claims Trjbunal Act, 1987, (for short the 'Act'), have been preferred by the appellant Gujrat State Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd., against the orders dt. 24.01.2003 (Appeal Nos. 1106/03, 1102/03, 1103/03 and 1105/03), and Order dt. 13.12.2002 (Appeal No. 880/2003) passed by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the claim applications of the appellant were dismissed. Since similar factual and legal position is involved in these appeals, the same are being heard together and disposed of by common judgment.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the common facts in these Appeals are that the appellant M/s. Gujrat State Fertilizer & Chemicals Ltd. booked certain consignments from GSFC Siding, Moti Khavdi to Sri Ganganagar, vide Railway Receipts as mentioned in the respective appeals. The consignments were dispatched by the respondent railway administration from applicant's Siding in a rake to the destination. The consignments were booked at the Railway's risk rate and all the bags were handed over in good and sound condition to the Railway Administration. However, at the destination, as many as 78 bags of DAP weighing 3.9 MT (in appeal No. 1106/03) 54 bags of DAP in appeal No. 880/03, 58 bags of urea and 33 bags of DAP in Appeal No. 1102/03, 48 bags of DAP in appeal No. 1103/03, 83 bags of Ammonium Sulphate and 36 bags in DAP in appeal No. 1105/03, were found short by the appellant on the basis of Panch nama prepared though no shortage certificate was issued. Hence, the appellant filed these claim applications which were dismissed by the Tribunal vide orders referred herein above.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the documentary evidence in the claim petitions as the Tribunal should have gone into outward tally book and Inward Tally Book while deciding the claims of the appellant and failure to do so amounts to miscarriage of justice as it could not have been possible to decide the claims on merits. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Union of India v. .;