( 1 ) THE appellants are the defendants. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 71,010. 32 towards compensation for non-delivery of consignment covered by R. R. No. B-850460. The averments in the plaint are that a consignment of B. H. C. Technical Consisting of 191 bags cf 75 kgs. each was despatched from Mitnapur railway station, Western Railway by M/s. Cross Objactions tata Chemicals Limited for the value of Rs. 64,657. 32 covered by their bill no. 5/100/75-76 dated 4-S-1975 to Guntur railway station in the S,c. Railway to the plaintiff under R. R. No. B-850460. The said consignment was loaded at Mitnapur Railway station in the wagon No. S. C. 3234 by M/s. Tata chemicals Limited. The wagon was not received at Guntur station and the plaintiff waited for a period of three months and preferred a claim under section 78-B of the Indian Railway Act to the Chief Commercial Superintendent, south Central Railway, Secunderabad the receipt of which has been acknowledged by the South Central Railway. The plaintiff issued reminders on 2-12-1975 and again on 23-12-1975 but the consignment was not delivered and no reply was sent by the Railway authorities. As the wagon did not reach Guntur Railway station, the plaintiff issued notice under sec. 80 C. P. C. as the consignment was lost on account of the negligence and misconduct of the Railway authorities. In the said notice the plaintiff claimed compensation for non-delivery of consignment of 191 bags of BHC technical and thus the plaintiff is entitled to f ecover the full value of the consignment amounting to Rs. 64,657. 32 and also further compensation for the loss sustained by him by way of interest which he suffered by paying rs. 64,633/-in the State Bank of India which comes to morethan Rs. 5441. 85 as there was no compliance by the Railway authorities the plaintiff is obliged to file the suit,

( 2 ) THE Second defendant filed written statement stating that the defendant offered delivery on 8-4-1976 of the consignment to the endorsed consignees of the Railway receipt and without receiving the said consignment the plaintiff has no right to file the suit. The negligence attributed to the servants in the alleged delivery is denied. The plaintiff is also put to strict proof of service of valid notices under Sec. 78-B of the Indian railways Act and Sec, 80 C. P. C. The claim in the suit is highly exaggerated the plaintiff is not entitled to any interest prior to the date of suit as there is neither custom nor contract for payment of the same.

( 3 ) ON the above pleadings the followings issues were framed for trial:1. Whether the plaintiff has title to the suit consignment? 2. Whether the person who signed the plaint has authority to sign the plaint. 3. Whether the defendant offered to deliver the consignment on 8-4-76 and whether it was rejected by the plaintiff improperly, if so, whether the suit is maintainable? 4. Whether there is no negligence on the part of the railway for non-delivery of the goods? 5. Whether the statutory notices under S. 78 (B) and Sec. 80 c. P. C. are valid? 6. Wheter the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest? 7. To What relief?

( 4 ) THE Court below found that there is negligence on the part of the Railways for non-delivery of the goods. The Court below held that the plantiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% p. a. as claimed by the plaintiff from 12-8-75 to 7-6-1976, the date of suit.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Court below is not justified in granting interest prior to the filing of the suit in the absence of any usage or contract to that effect. In any event, the rate of interest at 12% p. a. is excessive. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that in view of the fact that the plaintiff is deprived of the use of the amount due to the negligence on the part of the defendants, the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest and the rate of 12% p. a. cannot be considered as excessive.

( 6 ) THE