JUDGMENT B. MANOHAR, J.—Appellant is the plaintiff before the Court below, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20 7-2005, made in O.S. No. 1539/1999 passed by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore preferred this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,97,960/- together with cost and current interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from17-5-1997 and also for other reliefs. In the plaint, the plaintiff has contended that pursuant to the tender notification issued by the defendants for the supply of Raymond Woolen Blankets, the plaintiff submitted his tender. Since the plaintiff was the lowest tenderer, the tender submitted by the plaintiff was accepted. As per the agreement entered into between the parties, the plaintiff has to supply 6018 Raymond Woolen Blankets to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 370/- per item. As per the agreement, the plaintiff has totally supplied 6018 Raymond Woolen Blankets to the defendants. The defendants have duly acknowledged the supply and also made total payment of Rs. 20,28,700/- as against the bill for Rs. 22,26,660/- towards the supply of 6018 Raymond Woolen Blankets. In spite of repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants failed to pay the difference amount of Rs. 1,97,960/-. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants as contemplated under Section 482(1) of the Karnataka State Municipal Corporation Act, 1977 demanding the dues with interest at 24% p.a. from 17-5-1997. The plaintiff has contended that as the transaction is a commercial transaction, the defendants had to pay the dues with interest at 24% p.a. The plaintiff further submitted that the defendants reimbursed its EMD amount to the plaintiff on 17-1-1997 after being fully satisfied with regard to the quality and quantity of the supply of Raymond Woolen Blankets. In view of that, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,97,960/- with interest at 24% p.a. 3. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Court below, the defendants in the suit entered appearance and filed written statement contending that the claim made by the plaintiff is misconceived, not maintainable either in law or in fact. Further alleged that the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendants to supply Raymond Woolen blankets. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Court below, the defendants in the suit entered appearance and filed written statement contending that the claim made by the plaintiff is misconceived, not maintainable either in law or in fact. Further alleged that the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendants to supply Raymond Woolen blankets. However, he did not supply the goods of agreed quality. The blankets supplied is not from the Raymond Company and local blankets have been supplied. The blankets supplied are not as per the specification agreed between the parties. The defendants have made full payment and there was no due to the plaintiff. Many a times, the defendants had informed the plaintiff that they are not due any money to the plaintiff, in spite of that legal notice has been issued. The defendants have duly replied to the said notice. Further contended that there was no agreement between the parties for payment of the interest on the amount due. Hence, there is no basis for the claim of interest by the plaintiff and also contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim interest, as there is no cause of action to maintain the suit and sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are liable to the suit claim amount of Rs. 1,97,960/- as on the date of the suit? (ii) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the suit claim amount as claimed? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit relief sought? (iv) What order or decree? 5. The plaintiff in order to substantiate its case, examined their Proprietor as P.W. 1 and got marked Ex. P1 to Ex. P37(a). However, the defendants have not stepped into the witness box and led their evidence. However, the P.W. 1 was cross-examined by the defendants. 6. The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 20-7-2005 after considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties held all the issues in the negative and consequently dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the defendants are liable to pay the amount claimed with interest. 7. 6. The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 20-7-2005 after considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties held all the issues in the negative and consequently dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the defendants are liable to pay the amount claimed with interest. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20-7-2005, made in O.S. No. 1539/1999, the plaintiff preferred this appeal. 8. Sri Pradeep S. Sahukar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment and decree passed by the Court below is contrary to law and facts of the case. As per the agreement entered into between the parties for supply of 6018 Raymond Woolen Blankets, the appellant has supplied the same in accordance with the agreement of the parties. The respondents have accepted the same. No objection has been raised regarding the quality of the said blankets. The payment of Rs. 28,200/- was made as against the bill of Rs. 22,26,660/-. Further after the completion of the contract, the EMD amount was also returned to the appellant. Hence, it is not open to the respondents to contend that blankets supplied are of inferior quality and no document has been produced to show that he has purchased the blankets from the Raymond Company. The Court below without considering the documents produced by the appellant dismissed the suit, which is contrary to law and sought for setting aside the same by allowing this appeal. 9. On the other hand, Sri B.V. Muralidhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the Court below after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the blankets supplied by the appellant are not from the Raymond Company. The appellant has not produced any materials to show that he has purchased the blankets from the Raymond Company. Some of the Exhibits produced by the appellant would show that the blankets supplied are not the quality agreed between the parties and there is no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the Court below and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. After hearing the parties this Court has to consider the following points in this appeal 1. Whether the appellant has proved that he supplied the blankets in terms of the contract? 2. Whether the appellant is entitled for the suit claim? 10. After hearing the parties this Court has to consider the following points in this appeal 1. Whether the appellant has proved that he supplied the blankets in terms of the contract? 2. Whether the appellant is entitled for the suit claim? 3. Whether the findings of the Court below are liable to be interfered with? 11. We have carefully gone through the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties. 12. It is not in dispute that as per the tender notification and agreement entered into between the parties, the appellant has supplied 6018 woolen Blankets at the rate of Rs. 370/- per item. It is for the purpose of Powra Karmikas of the Respondent-Corporation. The appellant being the lowest tenderer, their tender was accepted and as per the agreement they supplied the blankets. As per the instructions issued by the respondents he had supplied the blankets to the various wards of the second respondent. The second respondent before receiving the blankets verified the quality and quantity of the woolen blankets supplied. Being satisfied that the blankets supplied are from the Raymond Company they accepted the same and supplied to the Powra Karmikas. The appellant in his evidence reiterated the plaint averments and contended that he has supplied 6018 Raymond Woolen Blankets at the rate of Rs. 370/- per item. The respondents have duly acknowledged the said supply. The documents regarding supply of the Raymond Woolen Blankets is marked as Ex. P4 to Ex. P28. The signature of the respondent for having received the blankets Ex. P4(a) to Ex. P28(a). The tender acceptance letter has been marked as Ex. P1 and letter dated 25-11-1994 issued by the second respondent is marked as Ex. P2 and Tender conditions is marked as Ex. P3. The statutory notice issued to the respondents was marked as Ex. P29. During the course of cross-examination, P.W. 1 has stated that he has supplied the blankets by purchasing them from wholesale distributors. The blankets supplied are from the Raymond Company. The second respondent before accepting the blankets verified the quality of the blankets, after being fully satisfied, the blankets have been accepted. Nothing contrary has been elicited in the cross-examination. 13. During the course of cross-examination, P.W. 1 has stated that he has supplied the blankets by purchasing them from wholesale distributors. The blankets supplied are from the Raymond Company. The second respondent before accepting the blankets verified the quality of the blankets, after being fully satisfied, the blankets have been accepted. Nothing contrary has been elicited in the cross-examination. 13. The case of the respondents is that the blankets supplied are not from the Raymonds Company and in only few invoices the Company of the blankets has been mentioned as Raymonds Company. In some other invoices, the company of the blankets has not been mentioned, hence, the blankets supplied are not from the Raymond Company and it is inferior quality. The Court below held that the appellant has not produced any document to show that he has purchased the blankets from the Raymond Company and in the absence of the same, the blankets supplied are not from the Raymond Company and denied the relief to the appellant. 14. It is not in dispute that the blankets supplied by the appellant were accepted by the second respondent without any murmur. Before accepting the blankets they have verified the quality of the blankets and they were fully satisfied that the blankets supplied are in accordance with the agreement entered into between the parties. Further, a sum of Rs. 20,28,700/- as against the bill of Rs. 22,26,660/- has been paid. Further, the EMD amount deposited by the appellant was also reimbursed to the appellant on 17-1-1997 on completion of the contract between the parties. The EMD amount has been taken as security. After completion of the contract, the EMD amount has to be returned. In the instant case, the said amount was also returned. In spite of completion of the contract, the difference amount of Rs. 1,97,960/- has not been paid in spite of repeated demands and hence, a statutory notice was issued to the Respondent-Corporation under Section 482(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. The respondent has not led any evidence to show that blankets supplied are not from Raymond Company. The document produced by the appellant clearly shows that Raymond Woolen Blankets are supplied. The Court below without considering all these aspects only on the ground that the appellant has not produced any documents to show that he had purchased the blankets from the Raymond Company and dismissed the suit. The document produced by the appellant clearly shows that Raymond Woolen Blankets are supplied. The Court below without considering all these aspects only on the ground that the appellant has not produced any documents to show that he had purchased the blankets from the Raymond Company and dismissed the suit. The order passed by the Court below is contrary to law and illegal. Hence, the appellant is entitled for the balance amount of Rs. 1,97,960/-. 15. With regard to the rate of interest claimed by the appellant is concerned it is excessive. The transaction is not the commercial transaction between the appellant and respondents. As per the agreement entered into between the parties, the appellant has to supply 6018 Raymond Woolen Blankets to the respondents. In the agreement, there is no agreement with regard to the rate of interest. In the absence of the same, the appellant is not entitled for the interest at the rate of 24% p.a. But, the appellant is entitled for the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 20-7-2005 made in O.S. No. 1539/1999 passed by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore is set aside. The appellant is entitled for Rs. 1,97,960/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the repayment. Parties to bear their own costs.