Judgment :- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. This appeal is brought forth by the defendants challenging the correctness and sustainability of the decree and judgment rendered by the Second Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.1250/86. 2. For convenience, we refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the original suit. 3. The plaintiff was a registered partnership firm carrying on business in fertilizers. The first defendant was the Food Corporation of India (for short ‘FCI’), constituted in terms of Section 3 of the Food Corporation Act, 1964, while the second defendant was its Senior Regional Manager at Hyderabad. 4. For ensuring proper distribution and availability of fertilizers, the Government of India allocates to each State adequate quantities of fertilizers to be drawn from the stocks available with the first defendant/FCI. The State Government in-turn re-allots the fertilizers to some private dealers apart from distributing the same through its own network. Every fertilizer dealer is required to be registered under the Fertilizers Control Order and such dealers are termed as re-allottees. The re-allottee declares could draw the fertilizers stock from the FCI upon payment in cash or through a demand draft or upon furnishing an irrevocable Letter of Credit in the specified format, drawn in favour of the Senior Regional Manager of FCI. The Letter of Credit is required to be drawn on any of the nationalized or scheduled banks with a validity period of six months from the date of its opening. The Letter of Credit is required to be negotiated through one of the branches of the banker situate at Hyderabad. Upon furnishing the Letters of Credit, verification is carried out for its authenticity and for compliance of the specific requirements set out by the FCI. Thereafter, the release orders would be issued for enabling the re-allottee to lift the stock. Upon expiry of 60 days, after delivery or dispatch of the fertilizer stock, the Senior Regional Manager of the FCI could call upon the negotiating branch of the banker for effecting the payment as per the terms of the Letter of Credit furnished by such re-allottee. The period of credit worthiness was enhanced to 90 days for the period between 29.09.1982 to 31.03.1983. The period of credit worthiness was enhanced to 90 days for the period between 29.09.1982 to 31.03.1983. In case the payment is made, either by cash or by a demand draft by the re-allottee or any purchaser of the fertilizers, the FCI extends a cash rebate of 2.5% which was subsequently enhanced to 4.31% for the period between 29.09.1982 to 31.03.1983. The defendants were required to supply the allottee fertilizers to the plaintiff at Tadepalligudem. For want of availability of adequate number of railway wagons, certain bottlenecks have developed in the supply chain of fertilizers, resulting in the FCI allowing the re-allottees to lift the stocks by road from its go-downs, subject to certain conditions. For undertaking this, road transportation charges were paid at the rate of Rs.0.36 pas per ton per kilometer during the period 1977 to 31.03.1981. These road transportation charges were enhanced to Rs.0.45 per ton per kilometer from 01.04.1981 onwards. 5. The plaintiff laid a claim towards the reimbursement of the road transportation charges in a sum of Rs.5,10,335.72 ps over a period of nearly 4 years time. The plaintiff has also laid a claim towards cash rebate initially at the rate of 2.5% and subsequently at the rate of 4.31% for purchase of fertilizers made by it upon payment of cash or through demand drafts drawn in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs.18,066.05 ps on this count. The plaintiff also laid a claim for refund of sum of Rs.47,876.12 ps as it could not lift the 30 metric tons of Calcium Ammonia Nitrate (CAN) fertilizer for want of standardization of the same. The plaintiff has also sought for refund of an amount of Rs.8,871.10 ps representing the sales tax amount paid by it on the short supplied quantities of fertilizers of 54.500 metric tons. Therefore, to the corresponding extent of short delivery of fertilizer stock, the sales tax paid in advance was sought for reimbursement by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also claimed a refund of amount of Rs.41,505/-towards rebate, allowed for lifting stocks of fertilizers which are more than 2 years old. Therefore, to the corresponding extent of short delivery of fertilizer stock, the sales tax paid in advance was sought for reimbursement by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also claimed a refund of amount of Rs.41,505/-towards rebate, allowed for lifting stocks of fertilizers which are more than 2 years old. The plaintiff has also claimed an amount of Rs.49,744/-towards equated freight charges, for the transportation of the fertilizers undertaken by him, from the rail head at Tadepalligudem up to its go-downs and also for lifting the fertilizer stocks available with the go-downs of the FCI within a 50 kilometer distance. The plaintiff therefore claimed a total amount of Rs.6,76,400.99 ps on the various counts mentioned supra. However, the defendants have made a payment in a sum of Rs.2,63,494/-on 21.10.1983 through a cheque drawn on its name. The plaintiff has acknowledged the receipt of the said cheque drawn in its name for the aforementioned sum. 6. Apart from the above sum, the managing partner had tendered another stamped receipt acknowledging receipt of a sum of Rs.1,24,317.46 ps after adjusting an amount of Rs.1,77,760/-towards interest amount payable by the plaintiff to the FCI for the delayed payments made by the plaintiff. It is claimed by the plaintiff that, it has not been paid this sum of Rs.1,24,371.46 ps, but however the Managing Partner was coaxed and coerced into passing on the said receipt because of a vield threat to hold back all payments ranging more than Rs.20.00 lakhs which are due from the FCI by then. The plaintiff has contested from the very inception that he is not due and payable any amount towards interest inasmuch as he has not caused any delay in payments and on the other hand the delay occasioned all due to the default of the defendants to call upon the negotiating branch of the banker to effect payment in terms of subsisting Letters of Credit furnished by it. The case of the plaintiff is that, he has furnished four Letters of Credit drawn on Andhra Bank for a total value of more than Rs.26.00 lakhs. Each of these four Letters of Credit is valid for a period of six months from the time they are drawn, as is the requirement specified by the defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that, he has furnished four Letters of Credit drawn on Andhra Bank for a total value of more than Rs.26.00 lakhs. Each of these four Letters of Credit is valid for a period of six months from the time they are drawn, as is the requirement specified by the defendants. As against these four Letters of Credit furnished by the plaintiff, through six different release orders drawn between 27.03.1981 up to 05.02.1981, the plaintiff has been supplied with fertilizers. But however, the defendants have failed to call upon the negotiating branch of the banker to redeem the corresponding Letters of Credit. For the failure of the defendants to invoke the Letters of Credit, action is initiated against some of the officers of the FCI, claims the plaintiff. Not to allow any such unpleasant event to happen, the plaintiff remitted an amount of Rs.9,21,299.28 as through demand drafts and the defendants have acknowledged the receipt of the said amount on 01.10.1982. After this payment was effected, according to the plaintiff, the defendants started demanding payment of interest initially in a sum of Rs.1,77,760/-which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.3,00,082/-. This became the breeding ground for discontent amongst the parties which ultimately resulted in institution of the suit. 7. The defendants have denied and disputed the tenability of the various claims on various counts raised by the plaintiff. Mercifully, the basic and vital facts were not in dispute between the parties. They are in agreement that the cash rebate of 2.5% is offered whenever payments are made either in cash or through a demand draft. Insofar as the enhancement of the said rebate to 4.31% is concerned, the defendants claimed that, such a benefit is available only in respect of certain varieties of fertilizers and also upon satisfactory compliance of stipulated conditions. The defendants agreed that, with a view to achieve quicker transportation of fertilizers to meet their demand, re-allottees were allowed to lift the stocks by road from the go-downs of the FCI subject to reimbursement of road transportation charges at rates fixed by the Government of India and the FCI. The defendants have also admitted that the plaintiff has transported the allotted quantities of fertilizer by road from FCI depots. The defendants have also admitted that the plaintiff has transported the allotted quantities of fertilizer by road from FCI depots. But however, they contended that the re-allottee was required to obtain prior permission from the competent authority of the State Government for such road transportation of fertilizers and also required to produce certificate of non-availability of rail wagons from the concerned railway authority. Since the plaintiff has failed to live by these two conditions, the claim for reimbursement of the road transportation charges in full is resisted, but however, allowed such portion of the claim which meets the actual rail freight charge for the quantities lifted by the plaintiff. Insofar as the claim for refund of Rs.47,876.12 ps, due for not lifting of 30 metric tons of Calcium Ammonia Nitrate (CAN) fertilizer, the defendants have asserted that for the default of the plaintiff to lift the said stock, this amount need not be refunded, but yet, the FCI has settled his claim. Similarly, the claim of the plaintiff for refund of Rs.8,875.10 ps towards payment of sales tax for short lifting of the fertilizers by the plaintiff, the FCI allowed the claim. Insofar as the claim of Rs.41,505/-towards graded quantity rebate for lifting the fertilizers which are more than 2 year old, the defendants have claimed that the amount due and payable to the plaintiff has already been worked out and paid. Similarly in respect of the claim of the plaintiff for equated freight transport charges in a sum of Rs.49,744/-, it is asserted by the defendants that they have reimbursed to the extent of the entitlement of the plaintiff and settled his claim in full in that regard. The defendants have justified their action of demand for payment of interest on the delayed payments made by the plaintiff by setting out that the four Letters of Credit furnished by the plaintiff are only collateral security obtained by the defendants as a measure of precaution and there was no lapse on their part in not redeeming them. The defendants have stoutly disputed and denied to have coerced the plaintiff to pass on the receipt in a sum of Rs.1,24,371.46 ps and asset that the plaintiff has issued the necessary receipt on his own accord and out of his free will after receiving cash. 8. The defendants have stoutly disputed and denied to have coerced the plaintiff to pass on the receipt in a sum of Rs.1,24,371.46 ps and asset that the plaintiff has issued the necessary receipt on his own accord and out of his free will after receiving cash. 8. In view of the pleadings set up by the parties, ten relevant issues have been settled for trail and the plaintiff apart from examining one of the employees of the FCI who worked as Assistant Grade II (General) at the relevant point of time as PW.2, has examined its Managing Partner as PW.1. Exs.A-1 to A-50 were got marked on behalf of the plaintiff, while the Assistant Manager (General) FCI was the lone witness examined on behalf of the defendants and Exs.B-1 to B-10 were got marked on its side. The suit was decreed in toto with future interest at 12% per annum on Rs.3,96,236.66 ps from the date of suit till the date of realization. Hence this appeal. 9. Heard Smt. P. Lakshmi Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri P. Venu Gopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P. Vinayaka Swamy, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiff. 10. Ex.A-1 is the circular dated 14.06.1976 issued by the Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Government of India, prescribing the procedure for supply of pool fertilizers, making the position clear that the re-allottees will make payment to FCI by opening an irrevocable Letters of Credit in favour of the FCI in the form prescribed by them, unless the re-allottee desires to make payment by demand draft or in cash. These circular instructions have been issued by the Ministry upon reviewing the existing procedures for supply of pool fertilizers specified by it earlier on 30.04.1976. Ex.A-1 is a policy guideline framed by the Ministry and communicated to all the State Governments as well as to the Managing Director and Zonal managers of the FCI. There was no dispute or debate raised about the binding nature of the circular instructions on the parties before us. 11. Ex.A-1 is a policy guideline framed by the Ministry and communicated to all the State Governments as well as to the Managing Director and Zonal managers of the FCI. There was no dispute or debate raised about the binding nature of the circular instructions on the parties before us. 11. We consider it appropriate to extract the contents of Ex.A-1 circular dated 14.06.1976 herein below: “I am directed to refer to this Ministry’s letter of even number dated 30th April, 1976 wherein the State Governments have been permitted, at their discretion, to re-allot pool fertilizers to private dealers registered under the Fertilizer Control Order. 2. One of the condition mentioned at (iv) of the said letter is that “the re-allottee will have to make payment to FCI in cash or by Demand Draft before release orders are issued by FCI”. The position has been reviewed and it is requested that the said clause may be amended to read as “the re-allottees will make payment to FCI by opening an irrevocable Letters of Credit in favour of the Food Corporation of India in the form prescribed by them unless the re-allottee desires to make payment by Demand Draft or in cash”. 12. The origin and importance of Letters of Credit in the realm of International Trade and Commerce was set out by Denning, Lord Justice, in Pavia & Co., S.P.A. v. Thurmann Nilsen ((1952) 2 Q.B. 84 at 88) as under: “The sale of goods across the world is now usually arranged by means of confirmed credits. The buyer requests his banker to open a credit in favour of the seller and in pursuance of that request the banker, or his foreign agent, issues a confirmed credit in favour of the seller. This credit is a promise by the baker to pay money to the seller in return for the shipping documents. Then the seller, when he presents the documents, gets paid the contract price. The conditions of the credit must be strictly fulfilled, otherwise the seller would not be entitled to draw on it”. But when issuing banker has no branch in the relevant country where the beneficiary operates, the services of an intermediary banker may be requisitioned. The intermediary banker may be asked to advise the beneficiary of the credit or may be asked to add his confirmatory undertaking to it. But when issuing banker has no branch in the relevant country where the beneficiary operates, the services of an intermediary banker may be requisitioned. The intermediary banker may be asked to advise the beneficiary of the credit or may be asked to add his confirmatory undertaking to it. In the latter event the beneficiary has the promise of both the bankers.” and it was approvingly quoted in Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co. Ltd. Sha Misrimal Bherajee ( AIR 1966 SC 1892 ) It would also be profitable to notice as to how Halsbury’s Laws of England have explained the concept behind the irrevocable Letters of Credit: “It is often made a condition of a mercantile contract that the buyer shall pay for the goods by means of a confirmed credit, and it is then the duty of the buyer to procure his bank, known as the issuing or originating bank, to issue an irrevocable credit in favour of the seller by which the bank undertakes to the seller, either directly or through another bank in the seller’s country known as the correspondent or negotiating bank, to accept drafts drawn upon it for the price of the goods, against tender by the seller of the shipping documents. The contractual relationship between the issuing bank and the buyer is defined by the terms of the agreement between then under which the letter opening the credit is issued; and as between the seller and the bank, the issue of the credit duly notified to the seller creates a new contractual nexus and renders the bank directly liable to the seller to pay the purchase price or to accept the bills of exchange upon tender of the documents. The contract thus created between the seller and the bank is separate from, although ancillary to, the original contract between the buyer and the seller, by reason of the banks, undertaking to the seller, which is absolute. Thus the bank is not entitled to rely upon terms of the contract between the buyer and the seller to reject the goods and to refuse payment therefore, and, conversely the buyer is not entitled to an injunction restraining the seller from dealing with the letter of credit if the goods are defective”. (Emphasis is generated) 13. A collateral security is one which is provided in addition to the principal or main security for effecting a particular transaction. (Emphasis is generated) 13. A collateral security is one which is provided in addition to the principal or main security for effecting a particular transaction. The contents of Ex.A-1 make the position explicitly clear that the re-allottee will effect payment to the FCI by opening irrevocable Letters of Credit in its favour. But however, an option is provided to the re-allottee to make the payment either in cash or through demand draft. We have, therefore, no hesitation whatsoever to reject the contention canvassed by the appellants that the four letters of credit furnished by the plaintiff bearing Nos.1/81 dated 31.01.1981, 5/81 dated 27.07.1981, 8/81 dated 23.09.1981 and 11/81 dated 10.10.1981, all drawn on Andhra Bank in the form prescribed by the FCI and valid for a period of six months from the respective dates on which they were drawn, are only a collateral security. 14. There is no dispute between the parties that the plaintiff has actually furnished the aforementioned four Letters of Credit before respective release orders are issued in its favour by the second defendant. The failure to call upon the negotiating bank to effect the payment during the validity period of the Letters of Credit lies with the defendants/appellants. For their failure to get the Letters of Credit redeemed, they cannot make a demand for payment off interest by the plaintiff. They cannot convert their default to their own advantage. The default committed by the defendants to redeem the Letters of Credit in time, therefore, disentitles them from raising any demand for payment of interest. 15. Through, Ex.B-1 dated 10.11.1982, the defendants have raised for the first time, the issue of the obligation of the plaintiff to pay interest towards delayed payment for stocks lifted by the plaintiff and it will be relevant to notice that the six release orders made a mention of in the said Ex.B-1 are the same as were mentioned by the plaintiff in paragraph 15 of the plaint. A close scrutiny of the dates of these release orders discloses that they are all released between 27.03.1981 to 05.12.1981. The four Letters of Credit furnished by the plaintiff, as was already noticed supra, were furnished between 31.01.1981 to 10.10.1981. Therefore, the demand raised by the defendants through Ex.B-1 is an unjust demand. Strangely, Ex.B-3 dated 24/26.02.1983 raised the demand of interest to Rs.3,00,082/-. The four Letters of Credit furnished by the plaintiff, as was already noticed supra, were furnished between 31.01.1981 to 10.10.1981. Therefore, the demand raised by the defendants through Ex.B-1 is an unjust demand. Strangely, Ex.B-3 dated 24/26.02.1983 raised the demand of interest to Rs.3,00,082/-. When once we have arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff is not at fault and the default for securing the payment for the fertilizer stock lifted by the plaintiff lies at the door steps of the FCI, the demand contained in Ex.B-3 can also be described as an unjust claim by the defendants. 16. A perusal of Ex.B-6 dated 02.04.1983 makes it clear that the defendants/appellants have adjusted an amount of Rs.47,876.12 ps, due to the plaintiff for its failure to lift 30 metric tons of Calcium Ammonia Nitrate (CAN) fertilizers allotted by it, towards the amount of Rs.3,00,082/-due from the plaintiff as calculated in Ex.B-3 dated 24/26.06.1983 towards interest component of delayed payment. Two things become clear from this Ex.B-6. 1) The plaintiff is entitled to be refunded the sum of Rs.47,876.12/-towards his failure to lift 30 metric tons of CAN fertilizer which the plaintiff claimed as non-standardized. This amount is what has been claimed by him as claim No.II in the annexure of the plaint. Therefore, this amount is otherwise due and payable to the plaintiff, is the position conceded by the FCI. They also took the plea that this claim was, thus, settled by them. 2) If an amount of Rs.48,876.12 ps is adjusted towards the outstanding interest of Rs.3,00,082/-, then, the defendants can only make a further claim for a sum of Rs.2,52,205.88 ps from the plaintiff. In fact, Ex.B-6 mentions this very amount as the balance amount payable by the plaintiff towards interest component. 17. Smt. Lakshmi Kumari has generated a huge debate at the Bar on behalf of the appellants, contending that, in view of the stamped receipt dated 21.10.1983 passed on by the managing partner of the plaintiff firm after receiving a sum of Rs.1,24,371.46 ps, it should be treated for all practical purposes as accord and satisfaction of the outstanding claims by the plaintiff payable by the defendants and hence the suit ought to be dismissed. She has also placed reliance upon two Judgments rendered by the Supreme Court, 1) Lala Kapurchand and others Vs. She has also placed reliance upon two Judgments rendered by the Supreme Court, 1) Lala Kapurchand and others Vs. mir Nawab Himayatalikhan Azamjah (AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 250) and 2) Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Agarwal Steel (2010 (1) SCJ 351) in support of her above contention. A mere look at Ex.B-7 will disclose the lack of tenability, behind the claim made by the defendants/appellants. Ex.B-6 is dated 02.04.1983, while Ex.B-7 is said to have been executed on 21.10.1983, that is nearly six months later to Ex.B-6. It is the case of the defendant that they paid a sum of Rs.1,24,376.46 ps, to the managing partner of the plaintiff firm after adjusting an amount of Rs.1,77,760/-due to FCI towards interest amount and hence he executed Ex.B-7 receipt. If we add Rs.1,24,376.46 ps to Rs.1,77,760/-, it comes to Rs.3,02,131.46 ps, whereas, as per Ex.B-3, the amount of interest calculated by the defendants/appellants towards interest component was only Rs.3,00,082/-. This apart, after having already adjusted a sum of Rs.47,876.12 ps as per Ex.B-6, the interest component had scaled down to Rs.2,52,205.88 ps by 02.04.1983. If any adjustment is called for, it is this figure which should be taken into account but not Rs.3,00,082/-which is computed as per Ex.B-3. Thus, Ex.B-7 is at stark variance with the contents of Ex.B-3, B-5 and B-6, generated by the defendants/appellants-FCI. Hence, we are not willing to attach much of legal significance to the said conduct of the managing partner of the plaintiff and his executing Ex.B-7. 18. The attendant circumstances pleaded and deposed clearly by PW.1 create any amount of doubt, in our minds for treating Ex.B-7 as a credible piece of evidence. By the time Ex.B-7 is executed by the managing partner of the plaintiff firm, the defendants are due to pay the plaintiff huge sums of money and they are also dangling before the managing partner, a cheque drawn, on that very day, in its name for a sum of Rs.2,63,494.18 ps, towards payment of transportation charges, equated freight, etcetera, in respect of movement of fertilizers undertaken by the plaintiff, as is evidenced by Ex.A-31. Upon receipt of the said cheque, the managing partner has passed on an unstamped receipt dated 21.10.1983, Ex.A-32. Ex.A-32 is drawn on the letter head of the plaintiff firm. Per contra, Ex.B-7 is drawn on a plain paper. Upon receipt of the said cheque, the managing partner has passed on an unstamped receipt dated 21.10.1983, Ex.A-32. Ex.A-32 is drawn on the letter head of the plaintiff firm. Per contra, Ex.B-7 is drawn on a plain paper. There was no explanation as to why on 21.10.1983, FCI attempted to make one payment through a cheque and another payment by way of tendering cash. Further, no evidence is produced in the form of entry made in Daily Cash Book or Day Book maintained by FCI, recording the cash payment made to the plaintiff. The plea of the plaintiff that, unless Ex.B-7 is executed by its managing partner, the defendants were not willing to part with the cheque drawn on 21.10.1983 in a sum of Rs.2,63,494.18 ps, hence, gains support. It will be appropriate to notice that the Supreme Court in Lala Kapurchand Godha’s case relied upon the principle enunciated in Day vs. Melea ((1889) 22 QBD 6101) by Lord Justice Bowen to the following effect: “9. ………If a person sends a sum of money on the terms that it is to be taken, if at all, in satisfaction of a larger claim; and if the money is kept it is a question of fact as to the terms upon which it is so kept. Accord and satisfaction imply an agreement to take the money in satisfaction of the claim in respect of which it is sent. If accord is a question of agreement, there must be either two minds agreeing or one of the two persons acting in such a way as to induce the other to think that the money is taken in satisfaction of the claim, and to cause him to act upon that view. In either case it is a question of fact.” And thereafter, the learned Judges, as a matter of fact, found that the appellants in that case received the second instalment of Rs.20.00 lakhs in full satisfaction of their claim. It is, therefore essential that all the relevant facts and the surrounding circumstances must be gathered to ascertain the real intention of the parties in accepting a particular payment in full and final satisfaction of their claim or not. In the instant case, Ex.B-7 did not inspire any confidence in our minds to hold that the plaintiff firm had fully and finally settled its claim with the defendants. 19. In the instant case, Ex.B-7 did not inspire any confidence in our minds to hold that the plaintiff firm had fully and finally settled its claim with the defendants. 19. It is no doubt true that the Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Agarwal Steel has observed as under: “5. In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted. In particular, businessmen, being careful people (since their money is involved) would have ordinarily read and understood a document before signing it. Hence the presumption would be even stronger in their case. There is no allegation of force or fraud in this case. Hence it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent while admitting that the document Ex.D-8 bears his signatures that it was signed under some mistake. ………” 20. In the instant case, the plaintiff firm is protesting all through about the coercion exerted by the FCI in view of its superior bargaining power while dealing with the plaintiff firm. The fact remains that, only on 21.10.1983, the FCI came forward to make a payment of Rs.2,63,494.18 ps and till then there was only seemingly unterminable correspondence. For a small time trader in fertilizers hailing from a small town, payments, if withheld, would cause near irredeemable situations of distress. Further, when in fact the plaintiff firm paid a sum of Rs.9,21,229.28 ps to the FCI towards the cost of the pool fertilizers supplied by it, Ex.A-44 dated 01.10.1982 is the receipt passed on in that respect by the FCI wherein it is recorded as under: “………… in full settlement towards the cost of pool fertilizers supplied …………” If the FCI has already accorded full satisfaction on 01.10.1982 itself to the plaintiff towards the cost of the fertilizers supplied by it, the question of leaving any amount outstanding still on that count would not have arisen. Therefore, the claim of the FCI made subsequently in Ex.B-2 dated 19.11.1982, Ex.B-3 dated 24/26.02.1983, Ex.B-5 dated 21.07.1983 should not have arisen. Therefore, the claim of the FCI made subsequently in Ex.B-2 dated 19.11.1982, Ex.B-3 dated 24/26.02.1983, Ex.B-5 dated 21.07.1983 should not have arisen. It is, therefore, clear to us that, both the plaintiff and the defendants have never intended to secure a full and complete satisfaction of their respective claims pending against each other. Hence, for this reason also, we cannot accept the contention canvassed by Smt. Lakshmi Kumari that the suit claim should have been out right rejected all because of Ex.B-7. 21. A passionate plea is raised that the suit which is instituted on 24.10.1986 is barred by limitation, as it was instituted after expiry of three years period from the date the FCI made payment of Rs.2,63,494.18ps, as evidenced by Ex.A-31 and A-32. 22. We have called for the original record of the Trial Court and noticed that the plaint was presented to the Court on 21.10.1986 but not on 24.10.1986, as is mentioned erroneously in the decree drafted by the Court. The plaint clearly carried the Court seal and bears the date 21.10.1986 beneath the signature of the scrutiny officer who assigned it SR No.12816 of 1986. It is contended that, 20.10.1986 was declared as a holiday to the Courts due to the demise of the Chief Minister of the State. Hence, though the plaint was verified on 20.10.1986, it could not be presented on that day. This apart, an amount of Rs.16,671.75 ps was paid by the FCI to the plaintiff firm on 06.04.1984. DW.1 in his Chief Examination has deposed as under: “During October 1983, the full and final settlement of plaintiffs account was made. However, after receipt of a claim 24-1-84 from the plaintiff, the Corporation issued cheque no. 262562 dated 31.3.84 for Rs.16,671.75 ps. The Corporation also reimbursed the claim of the plaintiff in accordance with the entitlement as claimed in column no.6 of Annexure-I of the plaint.” Therefore, the period of limitation has got to be computed from the latest payment namely 06.04.1984 and when the period of three years is computed there from, the suit instituted on 21.10.1986 cannot be declared as barred by limitation. 23. Ex.A-3 is another circular instruction dated 18.11.1976 issued by the FCI dealing with the issue of reimbursement of freight charges for movement of fertilizers by road by the re-allottees. 23. Ex.A-3 is another circular instruction dated 18.11.1976 issued by the FCI dealing with the issue of reimbursement of freight charges for movement of fertilizers by road by the re-allottees. Ex.A-5 is another telegraphic instruction issued by the FCI raising the road freight charges from 0.25 ps per ton per kilometer to 0.36 ps per ton per kilometer. Ex.A-6 is the circular instruction issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India on 08.12.2981 relating to reimbursement of additional cost of transportation of imported fertilizers by modes other than rail. Ex.A-7, A-8, A-9 all deal with this aspect of the matter. Ex.A-10 is a communication from the Director of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, addressed to the second defendant on 25.03.1982, with regard to payment of freight charges to the plaintiff firm, requesting the second defendant to consider the claim of the dealer (plaintiff) in the light of the Government of India instructions contained in their letter No.11-2/80 FM dated 08.12.1981. Ex.A-14 is the claim for reimbursement of equated freight submitted by the plaintiff. When there is no factual dispute with regard to the movement of fertilizers by road undertaken by the plaintiff, the resistance offered for payment of reimbursement by the defendants is wholly unjust and is not sustainable. 24. We may also notice that, DW-1 worked as Assistant Manager (General) in the office of the second defendant. He deposed that, he worked with the FCI at Hyderabad between 1977-1983 but, he was not dealing with the subject matter of the suit during the said period. He was candid enough to admit that he had no personal knowledge of the suit transactions. But however, based upon the record maintained by the defendants, he deposed before the Court. Through this witness, who had no personal knowledge, the defendants attempted to establish their case. 25. There is no serious dispute between the parties with regard to the entitlement of re-allottee of fertilizers for reimbursement of transportation charges or for payment of equated freight charges for stocks lifted from the rail head to the storage depots of the re-allottee/dealer, nor was there a serious dispute with regard to entitlement for payment of cash rebate and special rebate for lifting fertilizer stock which is more than two year old. The plaintiff has produced the release orders issued by the FCI and also produced proof of payment made by him. The plaintiff has produced the release orders issued by the FCI and also produced proof of payment made by him. In such an event, if the defendants really and seriously intended to raise any dispute either with regard to the quantum of fertilizers lifted by him and the corresponding reimbursement charges payable to him, the same ought to have been done with specific reference to the material available in its records and also by examining a person who is familiar with the transactions. 26. For their sheer failure to resist the claim of the plaintiff properly by adducing contra evidence, the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit. 27. However, there was no material brought on record to demonstrate that the rate of interest offered by bankers on short term fixed deposits was 12% at the relevant point of time. therefore, keeping the fact that the nature of transactions carried out between the parties is commercial, the ends of justice would have been adequately met, if the interest is awarded on the suit amount at 9% from the date of the suit, till it is realized. Accordingly, we scale down the interest awarded by the Trial Court, for the post suit institution period, to 9%. We see no merit in this appeal and hence it is accordingly dismissed, excepting the modification carried out to the rate of interest awarded by the decree under appeal. We leave the respective parties to bear their expenses.