JUDGMENT - F.I. REBELLO, J.:---The plaintiffs had contracted to ship 173 logs of Yellowbalau Timber Round Logs purchased from Bombay Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. through vessel M.V. Samudra Maya of which the owners are defendant No. 3. The 3rd defendant issued a liner bill of lading in respect of 173 logs. The vessel berthed at Vishakapatnam Port on 6th July, 1986. Out of the 173 logs, 104 logs were short delivered with a cubic measurement of 604.98 cub.mts. valued at US $ 71,559.06 equivalent to Rs. 8,98,983.17. These facts were communicated to the defendant No. 3 by letter dated 12th July, 1986. 2.Based on the pleadings the following issues were framed:--- 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are a firm, duly registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the plaintiffs purchased the 173 logs from M/s. Bombay Trading Company Pvt. Ltd.? 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit consignment was shipped aboard the 1st defendant vessel? 4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that there was a short landing of cargo at the Port of Vishakhapatnam? 5. Whether the Written Statement of the defendants be rejected by this Honourable Court, as the same having been declared by the agents without any "requisite authority"? 6. Whether the defendants prove that the defendant vessel was seaworthy? 7. Whether the defendants prove that the loss of cargo is a loss attributable to an act of God? 8. What relief and order? 3.On behalf of the plaintiffs they have examined Rama Singal, their Partner. No evidence is led on behalf of the defendants. 4.Issue No. 1: In so far this issue is concerned P.W. 1 has produced the Deed of Partnership. She has also deposed that the partnership is registered. That evidence has not been challenged. Considering that Issue No. 1 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs. 5.Issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4: In so far as these issues are concerned, the plaintiffs have produced documentary evidence in the form of Exhibits A-1 to A-3, B, C, D, E, and F-1 to F-4 to show the number of logs purchased, the number of logs insured as also the bill of landing. Further Certificates from the Vishakapatnam Port Authorities for the number of logs that were undelivered. Further Certificates from the Vishakapatnam Port Authorities for the number of logs that were undelivered. Considering the above it will have to be held that 104 logs have been short delivered in respect of which the plaintiffs agent claimed a sum of Rs. 8,19,313.58 paise. It is true that Insurance Company has partly paid the insurance claim. That, however, will have no effect on the ultimate decree. That would be a matter of settlement between the plaintiffs and the Insurance Company. In that light of the matter it will have to be held that the plaintiffs have proved that on account of non-delivery of 104 logs they are entitled to the sum of Rs. 8, 19, 313.58 paise. Issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 answered accordingly. 6.Issue Nos. 6 and 7: The burden of proving these issues was on the defendants. The defendants have failed to lead evidence on these issues and in the light of that these issues have to be answered against the defendants. 7.The plaintiffs have claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the suit. Considering the commercial nature of the transaction interest as claimed will have to be allowed. 8.In the light of that the following order:- (i) Suit decreed in a sum of Rs. 8,19, 313.58 against defendant Nos. 1 and 3 with interest thereon at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till decree and at the same rate on the principal amount from the date of the decree till realisation. (ii) Suit against defendant No. 2 as Master of the vessel stands dismissed. (iii) Costs to be costs in the suit. Certified copy expedited. -----