V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the Karnataka State Small Industries development Corporation Limited, which was the plaintiff in the Trial court against the judgment and decree dismissing its suit filed for recovery of Rs. 2,22,552-92/- together with interest at 18. 35% from the defendants. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff indented with 3rd defendant, Steel Authority of India for supply of 55. 50 metric tonnes of Cold Rolled Plates through transportation of defendants 1 and 2 Railways from Bokaro to Bangalore city. The goods had been loaded to Wagon No. CR 008 6454 under receipt No. 377065 on 16-3-1979. The value of the goods loaded was Rs. 1,27,297. 32 and freight charges was Rs. 14,814/- totalling to Rs. 1,42,111. 32. But, the goods were not delivered at the destination. Therefore, plaintiff made claim under Section 78 of Indian Railways Act, 1890. Since the claim was not settled, suit was filed in the Civil Court but the same was transferred to the Railway Claims Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has erroneously re-transferred the same to the Civil Court though it has got jurisdiction to determine the claim of the plaintiff under Section 13 of the Act. During the pendency of the suit, the railv/ays offered to pay the value of materials, freight charges, half oi the Court fee and Advocates fee as per Ex. P. 8 but the plaintiff claimed interest thereon as per Ex. P. 4. ( 3 ) THE 2nd defendant filed written statement contending that the suit was not maintainable in law against the defendants 1 and 2. It was further contended that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and there was no cause of action. The entrustment of goods for transportation to them is also denied. It is also pleaded that the rate of interest as claimed is exorbitant and therefore it is stated that they are not liable to pay the same. Consequently, it was prayed to dismiss the suit. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues and the suit went for trial. Plaintiff got examined one witness and marked the documents produced Exs. P. 1 to P. 9 in justification of its claim. The 3rd defendant was placed ex parts. Defendants 1 and 2 neither examined any witness nor produced any documents. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues and the suit went for trial. Plaintiff got examined one witness and marked the documents produced Exs. P. 1 to P. 9 in justification of its claim. The 3rd defendant was placed ex parts. Defendants 1 and 2 neither examined any witness nor produced any documents. Upon appreciation of the material evidence brought on record, the Trial Court, by the judgment and decree under appeal, dismissed the suit by recording its findings and reasons which are erroneous in law. The legality, validity and correctness of the same is questioned in this appeal by urging various grounds and prayed for allowing this appeal. ( 4 ) AT the outset, we hold that the action of the Railways Claims tribunal in re-transferring the matter to the Civil Court is not correct as the reason assigned by it is wholly untenable in law. The re-transfer was made by it since the 3rd defendant was Steel Authority of India. But, it was only a formal party in the suit. There was no claim against it. The claim was only against defendants 1 and 2 Railways. Therefore, the tribunal had jurisdiction under Section 13 of the Indian [railways Act] to entertain the claim petition and determine the same in accordance with law. It was on account of its mistake the case was again re-transferred to the Civil Court. When it has declined to entertain the claim of the plaintiff, rightly the Civil Court has considered the case after conducting trial. The defendants 1 and 2 did not oppose the order of re-transfer of the case to the Civil Court. Therefore, even though the contention of the railways that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit is correct, it was on account of the mistake of its own Tribunal in re-transferring the claim petition and the said order was not challenged by the defendants 1 and 2, the Trial Court conducted the trial and dismissed the suit after determining the rights of the parties. That apart, the defendants themselves subjected to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by filing written statement and also offering to pay the value of the goods and other charges as stated under Ex. P. 8. That apart, the entrustment of consignment for transportation was in the year 1979 and the suit was of the year 1982. That apart, the defendants themselves subjected to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by filing written statement and also offering to pay the value of the goods and other charges as stated under Ex. P. 8. That apart, the entrustment of consignment for transportation was in the year 1979 and the suit was of the year 1982. Hence, at this juncture, we cannot dismiss the appeal merely because the Civil Court had no jurisdiction, especially in the light of the admitted liability under Ex. P. 8 and the Tribunal has erroneously re-transferred the case to the Civil court, which order is not questioned by the defendants 1 and 2. Accordingly, the contention raised regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil court in the matter is rejected and we proceed to consider the other aspects of the case on merits to find out as to whether the impugned judgment and decree warrant interference by this Court in this Appeal. ( 5 ) ON Issue No. 1 pertaining to entrustment of goods for transportation to the defendants 1 and 2, the Trial Court has answered it in the negative by recording erroneous reasons without properly appreciating the legal evidence on record. In support of the finding recorded by the Trial Court on the above issue the Civil Court has assigned unacceptable reasons and the same are contrary to the legal evidence on record and therefore the findings are erroneous in law. Even though the 2nd defendant in the written statement has denied entrustment of goods for transportation, no evidence is adduced in that behalf but it has admitted the claim of the plaintiff as per Ex. P. 8 except interest amount. The Trial Court has failed to consider the documents Exs. P. 1 the Invoice, P. 2 the Railway Receipt and P. 8 the offer made by the Railways to pay the value of the goods and other charges. It has totally discarded Ex. P. 4 the copy of the freight charges paid receipt to the defendants 1 and 2 on the ground that the original was not produced by the plaintiff which reason is not correct. It has failed to consider the other documents produced as evidence on record in the light of the offer made by them to pay the value of the goods and other charges as contained in Ex. P. 8. It has failed to consider the other documents produced as evidence on record in the light of the offer made by them to pay the value of the goods and other charges as contained in Ex. P. 8. Therefore, we hold that the Trial court has committed an error in law by answering the issue 1 in the negative and based on such conclusion, it has committed further error by holding that issues 2, 3 and 9 does not arise. Hence, the findings and reasons of the Trial Court on these issues warrant interference by this court. Insofar as the other issues are concerned, the Trial Court has answered rightly and we concur with the same. ( 6 ) EVEN though the Railways offered to pay the value of the goods and other charges, the same was neither paid nor deposited before the Trial court during pendency of the suit. At least, it should have deposited the admitted amount before the Court leaving the issue regarding awarding the interest, to the Trial Court. Therefore, defendants 1 and 2 are liable to pay interest on the amount for the reason that the plaintiff must have borrowed the amount from the Bank for its commercial business and paid interest. Apart from this reason the transaction between the parties is purely commercial in nature and therefore the plaintiff is entitled for interest. ( 7 ) SO far as the rate of interest is concerned, plaintiff claimed at 17. 5% upto 30-6-1980 as per Bank rate and thereafter at 18. 35% per annum. In our view, the rate of interest claimed is on the higher side. Since interest is to be awarded from 30-6-1980, we restrict the rate to 10% per annum up to the date of filing the suit on the sum of Rs. 1,42,111. 32 (value of goods + freight charges) and at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of payment. Had the Railways paid or deposited the admitted and offered amount subject to the result of the proceedings, it could have saved considerable amount of interest and court fees. Since no payment or deposit was made of the offered amount, it is paying penalty for the same by way of interest. Had the Railways paid or deposited the admitted and offered amount subject to the result of the proceedings, it could have saved considerable amount of interest and court fees. Since no payment or deposit was made of the offered amount, it is paying penalty for the same by way of interest. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and decree the suit for the principal amount claimed. So far as interest is concerned, the same is awarded as indicated in the preceding paragraph. ( 9 ) SINCE the plaintiff has been compelled to file the suit on account of the damages caused to it and it was compelled to file this appeal in view of dismissal of the suit, we award costs throughout. --- *** --- .