Das J. — By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of a bunch of there four appeals as they involve a common legal point the facts being almost similar and the parties are al-o same. 2. We have heard Mr. P. P. Duara, learned counsel for the appellants. We have also heard Mr. R. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the respondents in all the appeals. The factual matrix of all the appeals are briefly stated here-under in seriatim. (A) F.A. No. 1/S5 arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati in Money Suit No. 28 of 1982 decreeing the plaintiff's suit. The respondent, Food Corporation of India us plaintiff, filed a suit against the present appellant in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge No.1 at Gauhati claiming a total sum of Rs. 2,45,167.00 for non-delivery/short delivery of the goods. The plaintiff's case is that a consignment of 2490 bags of wheat weighing 2,515,36 quintal was booked from Moga in the State of Punjab through the District Manager of the plaintiff to Gauripur Station of N.F. Railway in the Slate of Assam under Invoice No. 2, R.R. No. 202306 dated 1/6-3-79. The plaintiff, the Food Corporation of India was the lawful owner being both as consignor and consignee of the same. When the consignment reached the destination Station, the plaintiff took delivery of the same on or about 7.4.79. The consignment was loaded in 10 different wagons and at the time of taking delivery of the same by the plaintiff, a portion of the consignment contained in 5 wagons could be delivered only on 25.7.79. The remaining portion of the consignment contained in 5 wagons amounting to 1,262 bags of wheat could not be delivered to the plaintiff by the concerned authority of the defendant at its destination station in respect of which a short certificate was issued to the plaintiff. On the basis of the short certificate issued to the plaintiff with regard to the aforesaid consignment, the plaintiff served notice under Section 78 (B) of the Indian Railway Act and thereafter served another notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. on the defendant claim the amount for short delivery/non,-delivery of the goods. The total claim as made by the plaintiff in the plaint is Rs.2,45,167.00 for non­delivery and for damaged goods. The total claim as made by the plaintiff in the plaint is Rs.2,45,167.00 for non­delivery and for damaged goods. The plaintiff also claimed interest at the rate of 11.85% on the non-delivered as well as damaged quantity of delivered goods from the date of booking i.e. from 1.3.79 to 25.2.82 i.e. till date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff also claimed interest on the excess freight at the rate of 11.85% from the date of payment of the excess freight till the date of filing of the suit i. e. from 7.4.79 to 25.2.81 As the claim was not settled and/ or satisfied, the plaintiff claims the cost of the litigation as stated in the plaint. The defendant appeared in the suit and contested the claim of the plaintiff on various grounds. One of the main grounds of contest is that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim interest from the date of booking till the date of filing of the suit on both the counts including the claim on the amount of excess freight realised from the plaintiff by the concerned railway authority at the destination Station. The parties led evidence and the learned trial court upon hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record decreed the plaintiff's suit as claimed in the plaint with cost. The defendants have, therefore, prefe­rred this appeal. (B) F.A. No. 9/85 arises out of Money Suit No,63/82 wherein the plaintiff claimed sum a of Rs. 100387.60 as compensation and also the cost of the proceeding. In this suit also a consignment of 1261 bags of wheat weighing 1236.12 quintals was booked from Shikohabad in U.P. to Sibasagar Town under Invoice No. 3, R.R. No. 030438 dated 16.4.79. The plaintiff was the full owner of the consignment being both as consignor and consignee, The defendants delivered 748 bags of wheat against the aforesaid consignment leaving a balance of 513.22 quintals of wheat undelivered. The plaintiff alleged that the non­delivery of the goods was due to gross negligence and mis-conduct on the part of the defendant-railway in dealing with the consignment during transit. The plaintiff preferred a claim under Section 78 (B) of the Indian Railway Act. Thereafter the plaintiff also served notices under Section 80 CPC. As the defendants failed to settle the claim, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. The plaintiff preferred a claim under Section 78 (B) of the Indian Railway Act. Thereafter the plaintiff also served notices under Section 80 CPC. As the defendants failed to settle the claim, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 100387.60 as compensation for non-delivery of the goods, excess freight, interest and costs. The defendants contested the suit on various grounds. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff took delivery of the same quantity of goods belonging to Assam State Co-operative Marketing Consumers Federa­tion Ltd. (STATFED) without submitting R/R. Accordingly, the wagon containing the same quantity of goods was intercepted at New Bongaigaon Station and delivered to the STATFED. The defendants also pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest as claimed from the date of booking till the institution of suit. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and on considering the evidence on record decreed the suit to the extent of the amount as claimed by the plaintiff along with cost, Hence this appeal. (C) F.A. No. 91/84 arises out of the Money Suit No. 87/82 before the same trial Court, namely, the Assistant District Judge No. 1 Gauhati. In this case the plaintiff claimed that a consignment of 2101 bags of wheat was booked Ex, Rampur Station of Northern Railway to New Gauhati Station of N. F. Railway under Invoice No. 2 R/R No, 109907 dated 7/8-5-79. At the time of delivery of the consignment at the destination station, the defendant could deliver only 1042 bags of wheat leaving a balance of 1059 bags weighing 1069.59 quintals of wheat undelivered for which a short certificate was issued by the autho­rity concerned of the destination station. The defendant contested the suit on the grounds that the claim of the plaintiff was not tenable to the tune of Rs. 1,88,477.30 ps. as stated in the plaint on the ground, that earlier consignment meant for STATFED was taken delivery by the plaintiff and therefore the said portion of the consignment was intercepted at New Bongaigaon Station and delivered to the STATFED in terms of the notice served by the defendants on the plaintiff, The learned trial Court heard the learned counsel of the parties and en consideration of the evidence on record allowed the suit of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for the amount as claimed in" the plaint with cost of the proceeding. Therefore, the present appeal is by the defendants. (D) F. A. No. 73/85 arises out of Money Suit No. 38/82. The plaintiff's case is that they booked a consignment of 6277 bags of wheat Ex. Jandiala Station of Northern Railway to Silchar Station of N. F. Railway to be delivered to the Deputy Inspector, F. C. I. Silchar. The consignment was booked with the defendant Railway under Invoice No. 292755 dated 22/23-4-79. The entire consignment was loaded in 22 different wagons. But at the time of delivery of the consignment, the defendant could deliver only the goods contained in 21 wagons and failed to deliver the portion of the consignment of one wagon containing 237 bags weighing 239.37 quintals of wheat. Therefore, after completing the Statutory formalities the plaintiff claimed a total sum of Rs. 82,753-90 Ps. including the interest from the date of booking till the date of filing of the suit and also the cost of the proceedings as stated in the plaint. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled to any interest from the date of booking of the consignment till the date of filing of the suit. That apart the defendants took the plea of faulty packing condition of the goods as a result of which shortage and damage to the consignment "had occurred. The parties adduced evidence. The learned trial Court considered the evidence on record, heard the learned counsel of the parties and by the impugned judgment and decree allowed the plaintiff's claim for recovery of Rs. 82,603.90 ps, along with cost. Hence this appeal by the defendants. 3. At the instance of the parties and as the appeals involve the similar question of law and facts, we propose to dispose of all the appeals by this common judgment. 4. Mr. P. P. Duara, learned counsel for the appellants has very fairly submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case he has no dispute as regards the findings of the learned trial Court regarding the issues except the question of awarding interest from the date of booking till filing of the suits. Referring to the findings of the learned trial Court Mr. Referring to the findings of the learned trial Court Mr. Duara has sub­mitted that the learned trial Court passed the decree as per schedule of the plaint claiming interest @ 11.85% from the date of the booking of each consignment till the institution of each suit which is not tenable in law. The next point raised by Mr. Duara is that the learned trial Court also erred in law in awarding interest as claimed by the plaintiff for the excess freight realised from the plain­tiff. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Duara, learned consul for the appellants centres round the sole point as to the award of interest by the learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiff in all tie suits. The main thrust of contention of Mr. Duara is that unless the plaintiff can show that there was such an agreement for payment of interest at the fixed rate or that the plaintiff is entitled to claim such interest which is usually payable by usage of trade having the force of law or under the provisions of any substantive law, the plaintiff is not entitled to any interest as claimed in the suit from the date of booking upto the date of institution of the suit. In support of the. contention Mr. Duara, learned counsel for the appellants has referred to us a decision of the Supreme Court as reported in AIR 1966 SC 275 (Union of India vs. Watkins Mayor and Co.). Their Lordships had the occasion to deal in the aforesaid case with the legality of the claim of interest prior to the institution of the suit. While dealing with the case their Lordships considered the ratio of the decision of the Judicial Committee rendered in Bengal Nagpur Rly. Co. Ltd. vs. Rutranji Ramji as reported in AIR 193, PC 67 and also the decision in Maine and New Brunswick Electrical Power Co. vs. Hart as reported in AIR 1929 PC 185. In Union of India vs. Watkins and Co. Co. Ltd. vs. Rutranji Ramji as reported in AIR 193, PC 67 and also the decision in Maine and New Brunswick Electrical Power Co. vs. Hart as reported in AIR 1929 PC 185. In Union of India vs. Watkins and Co. (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court held "......It is well established that interest may be awarded for the period prior to the date of the institution of the suit if there is an agreement for the payment of interest at fixed rate or if interest is payable by the usage of trade having the force of law, or under the provisions of any substantive law entitling the plaintiff to recover interest, as for instance, under S. 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Court may award interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum, when no rate of interest is specified in the promissory note or bill of exchange. There is in the present case neither usage nor any contract, express or implied, to justify the award of interest. Nor is interest payable by virtue of any provision of the law governing the case. Under the Interest Act, 1839, the Court may allow interest to the plaintiff if the amount claimed is a sum certain which is payable at a certain time by virtue of a written instrument..." 5. Here in these cases also adopting the ratio of the above decision, Mr. Duara, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiff failed to show any usage or any provision of law which entitles the plaintiff to claim such interest from the date of booking till the date of filing of the suits. The above decision of the Supreme Court was again discussed in a subsequent decision rendered in Union of India v. Ishwarnand Saraswati ( AIR 1966 SC 395 ) by a Larger Bench with 5 Hon'ble Judges. Their Lordships adopted the principles laid down in AIR 1938 PC 67 and also the decision rendered in Union of India vs. Watkins (supra). 6. Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has candidly submitted that there cannot be any dispute regarding the ratio of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court as referred to above. But as regards the interest on the excess amount of freight, Mr. 6. Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has candidly submitted that there cannot be any dispute regarding the ratio of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court as referred to above. But as regards the interest on the excess amount of freight, Mr. Choudhury submits that the plaintiff is legally entitled to claim interest as because defendants had n« authority under the provisions of the prescribed rate schedule to claim any excess freight. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest on the amount of excess freight realised by the defendants from the plaintiff. The above argument of Mr. Choudhury appears to have sufficient force. Though Mr. Duara learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any interest on the excess freight, we do not think that this argument of Mr. Duara can stand in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for interest as claimed by the plaintiff in all the suits from the date of booking of the consignment till the institution of the suit's. This portion of the decree must be set aside. We, therefore, Sold (That the plaintiff in all- the suits is not entitled to any decree for interest from the date of booking of the consignment till filing of the suits, but the plaintiff's decree so far it relates to the interest claimed for the excess freight realised by the defendants shall not be disturbed and we hold that the plaintiff is entitled to have a decree for the interest claimed for realisation of the excess freight as paid to the defendants. Accordingly, we partly allow these appeals A, by setting aside the judgment and decree so far it relates to the awarding of interest @.11.?5% as claimed by the plaintiff for the portion of the consignment not delivered to the plaintiff from the I date of booking till filing of all the suits. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of all the suits are modified to the above extent!) However „. the parties shall bear their own cost in this Court. Sd/- Judge