Judgment :- The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal against the judgment and decree O.S.No.7289 of 1974 on the file of the 6th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The is for recovery of Rs.35,078.69 with interest and costs. The suit claim is composed of a of Rs.13,490.84 and interest at 13 1/2 per cent per annum from 18.9.1973 till 16.9.1974 amounting to Rs.21,587.85. The court below has granted a decree for the above said sum Rs.13,490.84 alone and declined to grant the decree for the above said interest on ground that the nature of the claim by the plaintiff was by way of damages caused to plaintiff by the negligence of the defendant in not unloading 7 crates at Madras on 17.9.1973 and that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest on damages for a civil wrong. So, plaintiff has preferred this appeal only against the disallowance of the above said interest. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The vessel belonging to the defendant Corporation of India called at the port of Madras on 17.9.1973 with 12 loads of stainless steel from Japan. But 7 crates were short landed which were subsequently found to been over carried to Bombay due to the negligence of the steamer agents of the defendant. The customs duty on the entire consignment was paid by the plaintiff on 18.9.1973 refund of Rs.1,60,791.02 was claimed on 17.10.1973 on the 7 crates short landed. The carried cargo was brought back from Bombay to Madras and delivered to the plaintiff 11.1.1974. Customs duty on this cargo was paid by the plaintiff on 17.1.1974. On account fluctuation in exchange rate, an extra sum of Rs.13,490.84 was paid to customs and interest charges on the customs duty paid to the customs was also lost to the plaintiffs. Hence suit was laid for recovery of the said sum of Rs.13,490.84 and interest charges at the rate 13 1/2 per cent per annum from 18.9.1973 (the date when the customs duty was paid the entire consignment including 7 crates which were not delivered then) till 16.9.1974, date of the plaint, to the extent of Rs.21,587.85. The above said interest was presumably claimed on Rs.1,60,791.02; though it is not expressly stated in the plaint. It is not clear the said refund is claimed and how the above said interest was lost and how actually it worked out. The above said interest was presumably claimed on Rs.1,60,791.02; though it is not expressly stated in the plaint. It is not clear the said refund is claimed and how the above said interest was lost and how actually it worked out. The plaint no doubt says that the Customs Department have not yet refunded the sum of Rs.1,60,791.02 paid by the plaintiff. 3. Negligence, oh the part of the defendant was found by the trial Court for the delayed delivery and that is why, as already stated, the trial Court decreed the above said sum Rs.13,490.84, the excess amount the plaintiff was forced to pay as customs duty due fluctuation in exchange rate. 4. Now, this appeal as already stated, is only with reference to the disallowance by the Court of the above said interest of Rs.21,587.85 claimed. The trial court has no doubt confused the issue by saying that the plaintiff claimed interest ‘on’ damages. It is actually interest ‘as’ damages which is maintainable in law. In this regard, the learned counsel the appellant relied on Union of India v. Steel Stock Syndicate, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 879 the plaintiff-firm booked the consignment with the defendant therein on December 15,1961, at Bhilai to be carried to Poona and delivered therein to the consignee. After a long delay, the consignment was delivered at Poona on 21.7.1962. The plaintiff alleged that the delay the delivery was due to the gross negligence of defendant-railway, which instead of sending the goods direct from Bhilai to Poona, diverted them to Aurangabad without any reason. plaintiff calculated the damages by way of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum the locked up capital of Rs.33,234. In that context, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the loss occurred to him because of the amount of money deposited in the bank being locked up for more than 6 months and that there was question of Sec.73 of the Contract Act overriding the provisions of the Interest Act, because the interest Act had no application since no interest was claimed by the plaintiff at all interest had been used as a measure to determine the compensation which the plaintiff could seek against the defendant for its negligence in causing inordinate delay in delivery of the goods. 5. 5. In the present case also, a similar claim has been made in so far as the above said sum Rs.21,587.85, the interest for the period from 18.7.1973 to 16.9.1974. Here also the interest had been used as a measure to determine compensation, which the plaintiff could seek against the defendant herein for its negligence in causing the delay in the delivery of the goods. So, such a claim is maintainable in law. 6. But, on facts, I have to hold that the defendant is not liable to the above said interest claimed for the following reasons: I find, from the evidence of P.W.1.., the Office Manager the plaintiff itself, as follows: “We have not made any specific claim for interest.......No document is filed to show that borrowed this amount from the Bank.” Even in Ex.A-13, dated 5.3.1974, which is a copy the letter sent by the plaintiff to the defendant’s agent, I find only a claim for the above said sum of Rs.13,490.84 alone was made not for any interest as stated above. Earlier, hen above said 7 coils were not delivered, the plaintiff was making a claim for those 7 coils. But, after the said 7 coils also were subsequently delivered, the plaintiff wrote the above said Ex.A-13 dated 5.3.1974 stating as follows: “As the short landed material has since been delivered to us in view of the fact that it was over-carried to Bombay due to negligence on your part, we have no claim for short landing the material. However, due to lack of proper supervision at the time of discharge of consignment and over-carriage of 7 packages to Bombay has made us to pay heavy penalty to customs authorities by way of extra duty due to fluctuation in the exchange rate. As such, we would request you to kindly pay an amount of Rs.13,490.84.” So, the claim was only for Rs.13490.84 and not for any loss of interest, at least for period from 18.9.1973 to 5.3.1974, the date of the said letter. That is why P.W.1. had to admit, “ We have not made any specific claim for interest Further, he admits that there is no document to show that plaintiff has borrowed any amount from the bank. There is also no such plea of borrowal. The plea is also not clear on what amount interest is claimed and how. That is why P.W.1. had to admit, “ We have not made any specific claim for interest Further, he admits that there is no document to show that plaintiff has borrowed any amount from the bank. There is also no such plea of borrowal. The plea is also not clear on what amount interest is claimed and how. It is also not quite clear from the plaint how the above said refund of customs duty paid, was claimed. P.W.1. also has not made it clear. In the light these facts, I do not see any justification for granting the above said claim for interest damages. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be order as to costs. V.K. Appeal dismissed.