BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the defendant in O. S. No. 274 of 1985. The respondents filed a suit for recovery of an amount of rs. 1,59,499-together with interest at 12% p. a. pendentelite till realization from the defendant and for the costs. The suit was decreed, therefore the appeal. ( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiffs was that. M/s. Machinery Manufacturers corporation Ltd. , Calcutta had sent a consignment to the 2nd plaintiff covered under an invoice. The said consignment consisted 5 wooden cases containing some machinery. The said consignment was entrusted to the defendant, common carriers, for safe transport. It had to be delivered to the 2nd plaintiff. The consignment was packed perfectly with standard packing. The carriers were satisfied with the packing and accepted the same for transport on 8-3-82. The consignment, reached the destination in damaged condition which was acknowledged by the defendant s representative and the defendant had issued a damage certificate on 3-4-82. The second plaintiff preferred a claim against the defendant. The 1st plaintiff had issued a marine-cum-erection open policy covering the risk of the consignment in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. Since the consignment was insured, the 2nd plaintiff also preferred a claim against the Insurance company. They settled the claim and paid Rs. 1,59,499/- to the 2nd plaintiff. The claim was denied by the defendant and certain defences were taken. Four issues were framed by the trial court and all the issues were decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submits that, in this appeal he is not challenging the findings on issue Nos. 2 to 4 and he will confine his challenge only to the finding on issue No. 1. According to him, there was no evidence for the trial court to come to the conclusion that the damage had occurred and the damage was to the extent of Rs. 1,59,499/ -. He submits that plaintiffs had only examined P. W. 1 by name Mr. N. Ramalingehwara Rao, Senior assistant in the 1st plaintiff company. He marked Exs. A-1 to A-17. The whole case was based on the report of a Surveyor and the Surveyor had not been examined and as such they had not the opportunity of cross-examining the Surveyor. He submits that plaintiffs had only examined P. W. 1 by name Mr. N. Ramalingehwara Rao, Senior assistant in the 1st plaintiff company. He marked Exs. A-1 to A-17. The whole case was based on the report of a Surveyor and the Surveyor had not been examined and as such they had not the opportunity of cross-examining the Surveyor. He further contends that there was no evidence that there was any damage caused during the transportation of the goods. In this connection, the trial Court has relied on the certificate dated 3-4-82 which had been issued by the defendant himself. This certificate reads as under:"it is certified that machinery booked under our G. R. No. A-111-1009 dt. 8-3-82 has been delivered in damaged condition to the consignee m/s. Abohar Co-operative Spinning mills Ltd. , Abohar. Details of damaged as per inspection report of the Erector of the consignee. " ( 4 ) THOUGH in the written statement it was pleaded that the certificate was issued on a stolen letterhead pad with forged signatures but the defendant did not at all take any steps to produce any evidence to show that the letterhead pad had been stolen, or the signatures put on it were forged. Even Mr. R. C. Chandran whose signature was alleged to have been forged was not produced as a witness. When the 1st plaintiff accepted the Surveyor s report, even at that stage no objection was taken by the defendant to show that th e Survey report was not genuine. The learned counsel further submits that, since the document itself is not admissible in evidence as it has not been proved by the person who prepared the report therefore no reliance can be placed on this report. It is true that this report was not proved by the surveyor and the Surveyor was not produced as a witness but the fact remains that the Insurance company had settled the claim and paid the claim amount to the 2nd plaintiff on the basis of this report. Therefore, we do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiffs had not been able to prove their case. On the other hand, the defendant had denied the certificate issued and submitted that it had the forged signature but he did not take any steps to prove such an assertion. Therefore, we do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiffs had not been able to prove their case. On the other hand, the defendant had denied the certificate issued and submitted that it had the forged signature but he did not take any steps to prove such an assertion. In similar set of circumstances the Madras high Court in T. Venkatachalapathi Lorry service v. The N. I. A. Co. Ltd. held:"even though the Surveyor is not examined, the compensation amount paid by the first plaintiff to the second plaintiff is sufficiently proved as per ex. A-18 receipt. It is not stated that the compensation paid to the second plaintiff is excessive. The Insurance company has only filed the suit on the basis of the subrogation deed obtained from the second plaintiff. The subrogation arrangement entered into between the plaintiffs is binding on the first defendant. " ( 5 ) WHILE agreeing with the judgment of the Madras High Court, we hold that the judgment of the trial Court needs no interference. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we direct that the interest be charged at the rate of 6% p. a. instead of 12% p. a. as decreed by the trial Court. The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above and the judgment and decree of the trial Court are modified accordingly. A decree be also drawn accordingly.