JUDGMENT :- Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-11-1987, made in A.S. No. 230 of 1986 on the file of the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28-2-1985, made in O.S. No. 387 of 1980 on the file of the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras laid by the first respondent (plaintiff) in both the above appeals for recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,458.21 from the appellant in both the above appeals, who are defendants 2 and 1 in the suit respectively. 2. The first respondent in both the second appeals is the plaintiff in the said suit O.S. No. 387 of 1980 laid for recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,458.21. Admittedly, while the first respondent/plaintiff imported cotton bales, the job of clearing and forwarding was entrusted with the first defendant, who is the appellant in S.A. No. 269 of 1990. When the first defendant/appellant in S.A. No. 269 of 1990 cleared the goods, five cotton bales were complained of inferior quality and accordingly, the first respondent/plaintiff refused to accept the delivery of the same. Since the first defendant/appellant in S.A. No. 269 of 1990, in spite of the notice by the first respondent/plaintiff, failed to take back the five cotton bales, the said five cotton bales were, admittedly, sold by the first respondent/plaintiff. But, still, complaining that they suffered a loss of Rs. 37,872.92, as they could not sell the said five cotton bales at an expected rate, they were constrained to pay interest on the amount borrowed from the bank, the first respondent/plaintiff laid the suit restricting their claim only with regard to Rs. 26,458.21. 3. The suit was resisted by the second defendant/appellant in S.A. No. 70 of 1989 on the ground that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount to the first respondent/plaintiff for the negligence or carelessness or lapse, assuming if any, said to have been committed by the clearing and forwarding agents, namely, the first defendant/appellant in S.A. No. 269 of 1990 inasmuch as the first defendant/appellant in S.A. 269/90 was appointed by the first respondent/plaintiff themselves. 4. 4. On the other hand, the first defendant/appellant in S.A. No. 269/90 contested the suit alleging that they cleared, transported and delivered the goods to the first respondent/plaintiff, which were delivered by the Madras Port Trust in the name of the plaintiff, and therefore, contended that there was no negligence or carelessness or lapse on the part of the first defendant/appellant in S.A. No. 269 of 1990. 5. The learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, by judgment and decree dated 28-2-1985, accepting the defence of the defendants, dismissed the suit. However, on appeal, at the instance of the plaintiff in A.S. No. 230 of 1987 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, by judgment and decree dated 23-11-1987, the decree and judgment of the trial Court dated 29-2-1985 was reversed and the suit was decreed against both the defendants. Hence, the second defendant has preferred S.A. No. 70 of 1989 and the first defendant has preferred S.A. No. 269 of 1990. 6. Mr. Nageswaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in S.A. No. 70 of 1989, contends that the Insurance Company/the second defendant in the suit is not liable for any negligence or carelessness or lapse, assuming if any, on the part of the first defendant inasmuch as the first defendant/appellant in S.A. No. 269 of 1990 was only a clearing and forwarding agent appointed by the first respondent/plaintiff themselves. That apart, it is also contended that even though the entire claim is based on the plea that the plaintiff suffered a loss, as they were constrained to pay penal interest to their bankers, there is no provision under the insurance policy requiring the insurance company to pay interest on any damage, assuming if any, for the negligence or carelessness or lapse said to have been committed by any third party, much less the agents of the insurer and hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay any damage to the first respondent/plaintiff. 7. Mr. C. M. Krishnakumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff, submits that the first respondent/plaintiff is not disputing the fact that the first defendant/appellant in S.A. No. 269 of 1990 was appointed by the plaintiff themselves for clearing and forwarding the goods delivered to them. 8. 7. Mr. C. M. Krishnakumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff, submits that the first respondent/plaintiff is not disputing the fact that the first defendant/appellant in S.A. No. 269 of 1990 was appointed by the plaintiff themselves for clearing and forwarding the goods delivered to them. 8. If that be so, I wonder how the Insurance Company could be made liable for the damages as awarded against them for the negligence or carelessness or lapse, assuming if any, said to have been committed by the plaintiff’s own agents. That part, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in S.A. No. 70 of 1989, the insurance policy do not provide any clause for payment of interest on the damage, much less, any damage for the negligence or carelessness or lapse said to have been committed by the agents appointed by the plaintiff. Hence, the very claim of the plaintiff against the second defendant, in my considered opinion, is without any basis. 9. I am, therefore, obliged to set aside the judgment and decree dated 23-11-1987 of the appellate Court and consequently, the suit in O.S. No. 387 of 1980 is dismissed in so far as the second defendant is concerned. 10. There is no representation on behalf of the first defendant/appellant in S.A. No. 269 of 1990. Since the fact that the appellant in S.A. No. 269 of 1990 was appointed by the plaintiff themselves is held to be valid under the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the appellate Court made in A.S. No. 230 of 1986 in so far as the first defendant is concerned. Hence, the Second Appeal No. 269 of 1990 filed by the first defendant stands dismissed. No costs.