Judgment :- Varghese Kalliath, J. This is an appeal by the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed the suit for compensation against Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi, Central Railway and Southern Railway for non-delivery of certain goods entrusted to the railway for transportation. Plaintiff claimed a total amount of Rs. 1,63,926.07. According to the plaintiff, the total value of the goods consigned and entrusted with the railway was Rs. 1,02,496.77. Plaintiff added along with that amount, an amount of Rs. 58,255.54 towards interest at the rate of 18% per annum for Rs. 97,092.57 for the period from 5/1980 to 8/1983. Further, the plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs. 2,837.21 as interest at the rate of 18% for Rs. 5,404.20 for the period from 10/80 to 8/83. Plaintiff also added some incidental expenses like T.A. and D.A. for the plaintiffs employees, an amount of Rs. 236.55 and notice charges Rs. 100/-. Thus the plaintiff claimed a total amount of Rs. 1,63,926.07. 2. Plaintiff prayed as 'A' relief, a direction to defendants 1 to 3 to deliver the goods consigned and as 'B relief it claimed that if W relief is found to be impossible of being granted, a decree for the total amount as specified above, viz., Rs. 1,63,926,07, The defendants contended that the plaintiff is not entitled "to the amount as claimed in the plaint and the conventional contentions were taken by the defendants. We are not giving the details of the contentions taken by the defendants in so far as this appeal only relates to a question of interest. 3. The court below, after assessing the evidence adduced in the case, decreed the suit for Rs. 1,02,496.77 only with proportionate cost and interest from the date of decree till date of realisation at the rate of 6% per annum. 4. In this appeal, plaintiff claims that the plaintiff is entitled to interest on Rs. 58,255.54 on the compensation amount which it claimed, viz., Rs. 1,02,496.77. Of course, this compensation amount represents the value of the goods. Further the plaintiff claims that the court below seriously erred in not granting interest pendente lite. In the appeal memorandum, the plaintiff has calculated the pendente lite interest at Rs. 46,584.80. It has calculated the interest at the rate of 18% from 19-8-1983 till date of decree, 28-2-1986. 5. Of course, this compensation amount represents the value of the goods. Further the plaintiff claims that the court below seriously erred in not granting interest pendente lite. In the appeal memorandum, the plaintiff has calculated the pendente lite interest at Rs. 46,584.80. It has calculated the interest at the rate of 18% from 19-8-1983 till date of decree, 28-2-1986. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the suit is one for compensation for non-delivery of certain goods consigned with the railway for transportation. Since it is a suit for damages, going by the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Privy Council, plaintiff is not entitled to calculate the interest on an un liquidated amount and in fact, plaintiff has calculated the Amount of Rs. 58,25.5,54 as interest on the compensation it is entitled to and as such, its claim is unsustainable. Learned counsel referred us to AIR 1966 SC 395 (The Union of India v. The West Punjab Factories Ltd.). This is a decision by five judges. The Supreme Court in very clear terms said that no interest could be awarded for the period before the suit on the amount of damages decreed. It also said that the legal position is well settled by a large number of decisions of the Supreme Court and Privy Council - vide AIR 1938 PC 67 (Bengal Nagpur Rly. Co. Ltd. v. Ruttanji Ramji ), AIR 1955 SC 468 (Thawardas Pherumal v. Union of India) and AIR 1963 SC 1685 (Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram). The Supreme Court observed that in the absence of any usage or contract, express or implied, or of any provision of law to justify the award of interest, it is not possible to award interest by way of damages and for that purpose, the Supreme Court has relied on an earlier decision reported in AIR 1966 SC 275 (Union of India v. Watkins Mayor and Co.). Ultimately, the Supreme Court said that in view of all these decisions, no interest could be awarded for the period before the suit on the amount of damages decreed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to us to AIR 1976 SC 879 (Union of India v. The Steel Stock Holders Syndicate, Poona). The facts of the case considered by the Supreme Court in this decision have got certain peculiarities which distinguished the case we have to consider. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to us to AIR 1976 SC 879 (Union of India v. The Steel Stock Holders Syndicate, Poona). The facts of the case considered by the Supreme Court in this decision have got certain peculiarities which distinguished the case we have to consider. In this case, there was no question of compensation for non-delivery. In fact, the goods were delivered by the railway. But it was delivered after considerable delay and on account of the delay, plaintiff submitted that it has suffered damages and so the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for damages. The Supreme Court distinguished the earlier case on the basis that the case at hand, on facts, is different in so far as it is not a cage for interest on damages. This is very clear from what has been observed in paragraph 17 of the decision. It reads thus: "The plaintiff is not claiming the sum decreed by way of interest but he is claiming the damages calculated on a particular basis. As a common carrier the Railway is undoubtedly responsible for breach of contract. In the instant case the Railway Receipt shows that the goods were booked to be carried from Bhilai to Poona which is on the Nagpur route. There was absolutely no reason nor any occasion for the Railway to divert the goods to a different route and for taking the same to Aurangabad which did not fell on the route to Poona at all. The Courts below, therefore, rightly found that the Railway was guilty of gross negligence". In this case (AIR 1976 SC 879), plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 27,332.44 in the Bank soon after booking the consignment with the railway administration. It was revealed that the plaintiff was a stockist and as the money in the Bank remained idle for a period of more than six months due to the delayed delivery made by the railway on account of its negligence, the plaintiff merely claimed compensation for the delayed delivery on the basis that if the amount was not locked up, it would have earned some interest which would have yielded some profit to the plaintiff. Stating so, the Supreme Court said thus: - "Thus it is clear, therefore, that in the instant case the plaintiff neither claimed interest on any quantified amount, nor did he claim profit due to loss of market". The Supreme Court also distinguished the decision by saying that the principle adumbrated in the two cases mentioned above (AIR 1938 PC 67 and AIR 1966 SC 275) will not apply to cases where the plaintiff merely calculates interest as a yardstick or measure to assess the damages which he would be entitled to. This is a principle whereby a plaintiff can claim damages for delay in delivery if the delay has ca used real loss to the plaintiff and forthe purpose of quantification of damages, there is no clear evidence for the loss sustained by the plaintiff, the plaintiff can sustain a claim by saying that on account of the delay in delivery, the plaintiff was not able to enjoy or not obtain any return for the amount which he has invested for obtaining the goods entrusted with the defendant which were delivered not in time and on that amount, a fair interest can be claimed as damages. When it is done so, it is not claiming interest on damages, but the measure of damage is determined on the basis of the interest on the investment made by the plaintiff. The case before us do not reveal such a claim in the plaint and so we find it difficult to apply the principle laid down in AIR 1976 SC 879. So, we hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to get interest prior to the date of institution of the suit. 7. The second point that has to be considered in this case is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest during the pendency of the suit. There is no difficulty in granting interest during the pendency of the suit. In AIR 1970 Ker. 241 (P.B. Kader and others v. Thatchamma and others), a Division Bench consisted of ag.cj. Ramannayar and Justice Krishna Iyer, has held that interest can be allowed during the pendency of the suit in regard to damages also, even though the damage is quantified only by a decree by invoking S.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this case, the court below has decreed interest only from the date of decree. Ramannayar and Justice Krishna Iyer, has held that interest can be allowed during the pendency of the suit in regard to damages also, even though the damage is quantified only by a decree by invoking S.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this case, the court below has decreed interest only from the date of decree. Of course, substantial interest has been accrued from the date of suit till date of decree, since the suit was pending for a considerable period. The Division Bench, after examining S.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, said that the statute has permitted a court in granting decree for damages, interest pending the litigation. There was certain serious controversy as regards the question what is a decree for payment of money. On the phraseology used in S.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure certain High Courts have taken the view that decree for payment of money will take in only a decree in a suit where a definite amount has been claimed and not a suit where damages have been claimed and decreed. Any how, the Division Bench said that in regard to damages also, S.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable for awarding interest during the pendency of the litigation. For holding so, the Division Bench has relied on an old decision of the Madras High Court reported in AIR 1926 Mad. 1021 (Ramalingam Chettiyar v. Gokuldas Madavji and Co.). The relevant observation in that decision reads thus: - "I see no reason why a successful party should be made to suffer because his claim is not decided soon after the filing of his plaint. When he files his plaint he puts the matter in the hands of the Court for decision. If it be held that the plaintiff cannot get interest from the date of his filing his plaint, it is equivalent to saying that the plaintiff must be deprived of the fruits of his success to the extent of losing interest from day to day during the pendency of his suit on the sum that he was entitled to at the date of his going to Court. The date of instituting the suit is the date upon which the rights of parties are ordinarily determined, and when the decree fixes the amount of damages due I think that they may be taken as fixed as on the date of the suit, and interest allowed upon that sum". In the same decision, Justice Venkatasubba Rao observed thus: - "It is however contended for the defendant that if at the time of the suit the damages were un liquidated, interest cannot be awarded under the section. No distinction is made in the section between an ascertained sum of money and un liquidated damages. As a question of construction, I find it difficult to accept the suggestion that the word 'money' in the section should be understood in the limited sense of an ascertained sum. The expression 'decree for the payment of money' is very general and to give it due effect, it must be construed as including a claim to un liquidated damages The mere fact that the decree is for the payment of damages cannot by itself be a bar to the plaintiff being awarded interest". The Division Bench has adopted the views expressed in AIR 1926 Mad. 1021. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in fact, there is no specific prayer for granting interest pendente lite. But, in paragraph 14 of the plaint, plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 18% from the date of suit till the date of recovery, which will take in the period, the date of suit till date of decree. Further, the plaintiff has prayed that the court should grant all reliefs which the court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. When once it is found that the plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite interest, we cannot disallow it taking hyper-technical view of the pleadings in the case, particulary when there is a prayer which will comprise this claim also. In the circumstance, we feel that the plaintiff is entitled to interest from the date of suit till date of decree. 9. In the result, we modify the decree and hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the amount decreed by the court below, viz., Rs. 1,02,496.77 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. Appeal is allowed as above. No order as to costs.