BNUMBER:  B-270314
DATE:  February 16, 1996
TITLE:  Allied Transcontinental Forwarding, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Allied Transcontinental Forwarding, Inc.

File:     B-270314

Date:February 16, 1996

DIGEST

Upon delivery of his household goods shipment, shipper listed "books 
and tackle box" on the DD Form 1840 (Statement of Loss or Damage at 
Delivery) with a nonconforming inventory number.  Notwithstanding the 
incorrect inventory number, such description clearly refers to goods 
tendered to carrier, where inventory lists only one item containing 
the description "books and tackle box."  Therefore, carrier is liable 
for loss of this item.

DECISION

Allied Transcontinental Forwarding, Inc. (Allied) requests our review 
of our Claims Group's settlement involving an Air Force setoff of 
$272.61 against funds due Allied in connection with loss and damage to 
an employee's household goods.  We affirm the settlement.

BACKGROUND

Allied picked up the shipper's household goods from Oakton, Virginia, 
on December 13, 1990, and delivered them to San Antonio, Texas, on 
February 14, 1991.  On the day the shipment was delivered, the shipper 
and Allied's representative signed the DD Form 1840 (Joint Statement 
of Loss or Damage at Delivery).  On the DD Form 1840, the shipper 
listed, among other lost or damaged items, the contents of inventory 
item #5 as "books and tackle box", and stated that the entire contents 
of the box were missing.

The inventory was prepared on forms preprinted with numbers in 
ten-digit series (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0).  To complete the 
inventory, as articles were listed beyond the first series of ten 
numbers, each succeeding series was to be shown as the next succeeding 
ten-digit grouping, i.e., 11-20, 21-30, etc.  Because of the manner in 
which the inventory was completed, item #5 appeared twice on the 
actual inventory.  The first item #5 on the inventory described a 
couch.  The second item so numbered (which should have been preceded 
by a 1, making it #15) described a mirror pack containing a painting.  
Both of these items were delivered.  There was, however, an inventory 
item described as "books and tackle box" at #5 in the 60 series, 
making it item #65.  On the date of the delivery, the shipper checked 
off, in pencil, each item that was received.  No check was made for 
item #65.

Subsequently, the employee submitted a claim to the Air Force for 
missing and damaged household goods, including the missing books and 
tackle box (and contents of the latter).  Ultimately, the Air Force 
settled the claim with the member and set off $2,233.45 from amounts 
otherwise due Allied.  Allied appealed to our Claims Group for a 
refund of $272.61 relating to the missing books and tackle box listed 
on the DD Form 1840 as inventory item #5, arguing that since item #5 
did not relate to these articles there is no proof of tender of such 
articles.

ANALYSIS

In order to establish a prima facie case of carrier liability, the 
shipper must show that the goods were tendered to a carrier in a 
certain condition, and that the goods were not delivered by the 
carrier or were delivered by the carrier in a more damaged condition.  
In addition, the shipper must establish an amount of the damages.  
Thereafter, the burden is on the carrier to show that it was free from 
negligence and that the damage resulted from an excepted cause.  See 
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134 (1963); 
Stevens Transportation Co., Inc., B-243750, Aug. 28, 1991.

Allied claims that there was no proof of tender of the books and 
tackle box listed on the DD Form 1840 as inventory item #5.  Because 
the shipper did not state that he had listed the wrong inventory 
number when filing his claim, Allied argues that there is not 
sufficient evidence that the books and tackle box the shipper claimed 
to be missing were those actually inventoried as item #65.  In 
support, Allied cites Interstate Van Lines, Inc., B-197911.2, Sept. 9, 
1988, which states that a carrier cannot be held liable based on an 
arbitrary change in inventory numbers by a claims adjudicator.[1]

We are not persuaded by Allied's argument, and we do not think the 
decision Allied cites supports its position here.  In that decision, 
B-197911.2, the Navy had given notice for damage to waterbed rails 
labelled #263.  Item #263 on the inventory referred to waterbed rails 
that had preexisting damage.  The Navy subsequently sent a claim to 
the carrier that described the damaged item as waterbed rails but 
changed the inventory number to #259, which on the inventory referred 
to waterbed rails with no preexisting damage.  When the carrier 
objected that the inventory item number relating to the waterbed rail 
had been changed for the purpose of filing a claim, the Navy offered 
no explanation but merely recited that the item #259 on the inventory 
showed no preexisting damage.  Under these facts we held that the Navy 
had not established that damage in shipment occurred.  

In contrast, we believe that the administrative file in the present 
case provides sufficient evidence that the DD Form 1840's annotation 
of missing books and a tackle box must relate to inventory #65 and not 
#5.[2]  The inventory indicates that a carton containing books and a 
tackle box was in fact tendered to the carrier.  Unlike the situation 
in the case the carrier cites where there were two separate items on 
the inventory listed as waterbed rails, in this case aside from item 
#65, no other inventory number contained the notation "books and 
tackle box".  Furthermore, the shipper checked inventory items that 
were received on the date of the shipment's arrival, and did not check 
item #65 as having been received.  From the somewhat confusing manner, 
described above, in which item #65 is listed on the preprinted form as 
item #5 in the 60 series, it is easily understandable how the shipper 
could have misread it as simply item #5.

Accordingly, the Claims Group's settlement is affirmed.

/s/Seymour Efros
forRobert P. Murphy
General Counsel

1. Allied also argues that the fact its agent signed the DD Form 1840, 
section B of which was the record of loss or damage to be completed 
jointly by the service member and the carrier's representative, was 
not an acknowledgement by the carrier of the loss or damage.  We find 
it unnecessary to address this issue to decide this case.

2. We have held that minor discrepancies in the manner in which the 
government's claim was presented to the carrier do not defeat the 
prima facie case of carrier liability.  See Continental Van Lines, 
Inc., B-228702, Dec. 16, 1988.