JUDGMENT : KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. 1. This Original Side Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge in C.S. No. 1269 of 1991 dated 06.06.2011. 2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the Civil Suit and the respondents 1 to 4 are the defendants. 3. The facts of the case, which led to the filing of this Appeal are as follows:- (i) The plaintiff is a Statutory Body, represented by its Superintending Engineer/Electrical, Mettur Thermal Project, Mettur Dam, Salem District. A project work was initiated for construction of 4 units of 210 MW Thermal Power Generation, for which purpose, the plaintiff is in need of certain materials. Accordingly, they placed orders for the manufacture and supply of condenser tubes with BHEL, at Haridhwar. The first defendant also issued a transit insurance policy for an assured sum of Rs. 50 lakhs on 23.01.1984, covering all the risk for transport of Turbo General Materials, including condenser tubes from various parts of India on M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL). (ii) BHEL entrusted the work order to their sub-vendor, M/s. Alcobax Metals Pvt. Ltd at Jodhpur. The said M/s. Alcobax Metals Pvt. Ltd. manufactured 2063 condenser tubes and despatched the same to Mettur Thermal Power Project, Mettur (MTPP) through the carrier, M/s. Transport Corporation of India Ltd. on 29.03.1988. As ill-luck would have it, the consignment was received by the plaintiff in a damaged condition on 11.10.1988. Since the plaintiff had taken open marine policy for transit insurance from the first defendant for the materials to be transported to MTPP from various places by BHEL and sub vendors of BHEL, they made a claim on 04.01.1989 for a sum of Rs. 62,32,814/- towards loss caused due to the damage of 2061 cupro nickel tubes. After a prolonged correspondences, the first defendant's Branch Office at Mettur Dam, sent a letter dated 03.01.1991, indicating that as per Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, the claim cannot be processed. (iii) According to the plaintiff, Section 64 VB is not applicable to their case and even, if it is made applicable, the plaintiff, being a State Owned Board, stands exempted from the said provision. (iii) According to the plaintiff, Section 64 VB is not applicable to their case and even, if it is made applicable, the plaintiff, being a State Owned Board, stands exempted from the said provision. Since the first defendant did not come forward to settle the lawful claim made by the plaintiff, the plaintiff caused a lawyer's notice dated 20.02.1991 to the first defendant, to which, the first defendant sent a reply, dated 06.03.1991 through its Lawyer, informing that a reply will be sent after two weeks. Subsequently, by another reply, dated 15.06.1991, the Advocate appearing on behalf of the first defendant called for certain details, which are already available with the first defendant and later on, denied the liability for the reasons best known to them. (iv) As the first defendant, representing all other defendants failed to settle the claim, the Civil Suit has been instituted against them seeking for a judgment and decree: (a) directing the first defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 37,34,700/- which is inclusive of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on Rs. 24,93,125/- from the date of plaint till the date of realization; (b) Insofar as defendants 2 to 4 are concerned, direction has been sought for upon each of them to pay a sum of Rs. 18,67,350/- which is inclusive of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on Rs. 12,46,563/- from the date of plaint till the date of realization. (v) The defendants contested the suit by filing individual written statements, inter alia, denying their liability to settle the claim. (vi) The learned Single Judge based on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues for consideration:- (1) Whether there was valid insurance cover for the suit consignment? (2) Whether the plaintiff had paid premium prior to transit in respect of suit consignment? (3) Whether there was any short fall in the premium on the date of claim, i.e. on 04.01.1989, in the open policy? (4) Whether the insurer is relieved from liability on the ground that the plaintiff has not proceeded against or preserved right of recovery against the carrier? (5) Whether the entire consignment was damaged in transit and received in damaged condition? What is the extent of loss? (6) Whether the defendants are right in rejecting the legitimate claim of the plaintiff? (7) Whether the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the suit claim? (5) Whether the entire consignment was damaged in transit and received in damaged condition? What is the extent of loss? (6) Whether the defendants are right in rejecting the legitimate claim of the plaintiff? (7) Whether the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the suit claim? (8) To what relief, the parties are entitled to? Additional Issue - Whether the suit is in time? (vii) The learned Single Judge, after an elaborate discussion over Issue Nos. 1 to 3, found that even though the premium was paid posterior to the loading of the consignment at Jodhpur, evidence is available to show that the same was accepted by the first defendant, as they settled all other claims made by the plaintiff, except, the suit claim. Further, the learned Single Judge has found that the first defendant has not specified proper premium to be paid by the plaintiff at any point of time, and, even in the reply notice sent by the first defendant in response to the lawyer's notice caused by the plaintiff, nothing was stated about the inadequacy of premium to be paid by the plaintiff and there is no explanation nor reasons for rejecting the claim. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held there was valid insurance coverage for the suit consignment and at the time of delivery of the consignment, the insurance coverage was existing and there is no materials to show that there was short fall in the premium on the date of claim. Thus, by holding so, answered Issue Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff. (viii) Insofar as Issue No. 4 is concerned, the learned Single Judge held that no notice was issued under Section 10 of the Carriers Act as to the damage and claim, thereby, the plaintiff failed to preserve the rights of recovery of the first defendant against the carrier, and therefore, violated not only the policy conditions but also the statutory requirement, which would dis-entitle him from seeking remedy. Thus, by rendering such findings, decided Issue No. 4 against the plaintiff. (ix) Insofar as the Issue Nos.5 to 8 are concerned, the learned Single Judge held that, since Issue No. 4 is answered in favour of the defendants, there is no necessity to assess the extent of loss and observed that the defendants are right in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff and answered Issue Nos. (ix) Insofar as the Issue Nos.5 to 8 are concerned, the learned Single Judge held that, since Issue No. 4 is answered in favour of the defendants, there is no necessity to assess the extent of loss and observed that the defendants are right in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff and answered Issue Nos. 5 to 8 against the plaintiff. (x) As far as additional issue is concerned, the same was decided in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the suit was filed within the period of limitation. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge dismissed the suit. (xi) Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 06.06.2011 in C.S. No. 1269 of 1991, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred the present Original Side Appeal. 4. Mr. V. Viswanathan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant advanced his argument by submitting that the learned Single Judge having rightly held that there was valid insurance coverage at the time of delivery of the consignment, and that, there was no short fall of premium on the date of the claim, and answered Issue Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of the appellant, ought not have dismissed the suit on the ground that no notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act was issued by the appellant, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek any remedy. Further, the learned counsel submitted that, based on such wrong findings in regard to Issue No. 4, the learned Single Judge decided Issue Nos. 5 to 8 also against the appellant, which are liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to take note of the vital factor that the appellant had issued a notice, in the form of letter through RPAD to the Branch Manager, M/s. Transport Corporation of India Ltd. indicating the value of the damages and the claimand the said notice, marked as Ex.D.21, should be treated as notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act. But, the learned Single Judge completely rejected Ex.D.21 and wrongly held that no notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act was issued by the appellant and rejected their entire claim. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to law, weightage of evidence and liable to be set aside. 6. But, the learned Single Judge completely rejected Ex.D.21 and wrongly held that no notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act was issued by the appellant and rejected their entire claim. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to law, weightage of evidence and liable to be set aside. 6. Further, it is submitted that there is no privity of contract that existed between the appellant and the carrier. The carrier/transporter was engaged by the consignor of the goods (BHEL) and hence, the transporter was not arrayed as party to the suit proceedings. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the suit filed by the appellant should not be non-suited on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party, viz, carrier. 7. Further, the learned counsel submitted that since the consignment received by the appellant got damaged and the appellant has taken open marine policy with the first respondent, to recoup the said loss, the appellant made a claim in respect of damaged 2061 cupro nickel tubes, at Rs. 62,32,814/-. The claim made by the appellant is just and proper. Further, it is submitted that the appellant has also taken steps for minimizing the loss. Accordingly, a meeting was held on 22.02.1989 at Hardwar with (1) first respondent's insurance surveyor, (2) appellant (TNEB) official and (3) BHEL. After that, insurance surveyor, TNEB official and BHEL attended meeting with M/s. Alcobex, Jodhpur (Manufacturer of cupro-nickel tubes) to explore the possibility of reprocessing the damaged tubes on 24.02.1989 and offer from M/s. Alcobex was also received for reprocessing the damaged tubes. However, BHEL had expressed that they would not give any guarantee for reprocessed tubes. Hence, the appellant took decision not to reprocess and moreover, keeping in mind that the materials used in the power plant should serve for long periods and since BHEL was the contractor for supply, erection and commissioning of the project and without their acceptance, the reprocessed tubes could not be used, the appellant dropped the idea of re-processing the damaged consignment. This aspect has not been considered by the surveyor of the first respondent and has wrongly calculated the loss and arrived at a sum of Rs. 12,58,320/- which cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the compensation for the damage caused to the consignment. This aspect has not been considered by the surveyor of the first respondent and has wrongly calculated the loss and arrived at a sum of Rs. 12,58,320/- which cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the compensation for the damage caused to the consignment. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant did not have any other option, except, to make a claim for entire damage caused to the consignment, since out of 2063 cupro-nickel tubes, 2061 got damaged, which fact was not disputed by the respondents. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that when the appellant had made a claim covering smaller quantities under the declaration No. 376, marked as Ex.P.5, the same were allowed by the respondents and since the present claim under the same declaration No. 376 is in respect of larger quantities, the respondents rejected the claim, citing rule 64 (v) (B) as a ground. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3 submitted that there was no proper notice issued by the appellant under Section 10 of the Carriers Act, and therefore, the appellant has not reserved the right of recovery on the respondents against the carrier. Hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly disallowed the claim and dismissed the suit. Further, he submitted that 2063 cupro nickel tubes, 2061 were dispatched by M/s. Transport Corporation of India in a damaged condition and as per the terms of the Policy, the appellant should have taken steps to minimize the loss, and if they done so, the loss would have got reduced to a reasonable sum. However, the appellant did not take any such steps for minimizing the loss and this is evident from the deposition of PW-1, in cross-examination, wherein, the appellant themselves have admitted that the BHEL offered to take the damaged goods on salvage value at the rate of Rs. 63.83 kg. and they have not taken any steps to sell the damaged materials on the highest value. Therefore, it is clear that, it is the appellant, who have not opted for re-processing the damaged tubes and this per se would prove that the appellant did not have any intention to minimize the loss. 63.83 kg. and they have not taken any steps to sell the damaged materials on the highest value. Therefore, it is clear that, it is the appellant, who have not opted for re-processing the damaged tubes and this per se would prove that the appellant did not have any intention to minimize the loss. Therefore, the appellant has not fulfilled the terms stated in the Policy/Ex.P.1 and hence, is not entitled to make any claim. 10. The learned counsel further submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party, as the carrier of the goods were not impleaded by the appellant and this aspect was rightly taken note of by the learned Single Judge and held that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 11. The learned counsel further submitted that the consignment was despatched by M/s. Alcobex Metals Pvt. Ltd. Jodhpur on 29.03.1988 and the same reached the destination on 24.07.1988. Since there was some dispute regarding payment of freight charges, the carrier was forced to take back the materials to Bangalore and it was kept in their godown and thereafter, it were delivered to the appellant on 11.10.1988. The consignment was kept with the carrier for a period of three months by the consignee. Further, it is to be noted that there is every possibility for the consignment to get damaged at the time of loading and unloading the consignment during such to and fro movements and i.e., from Jodhpur to Mettur; Mettur to Bangalore and Bangalore to Mettur. Therefore, the learned counsel urged that, it is purely due to the negligence on the part of the appellant in not paying the frieght charges, the goods were moved from one place to another place and during such transit, it might have got damaged and hence, at least the liability to that extent may be fastened on the appellant. 12. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 3 and perused the materials on record. 13. The points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:- (1) Whether the appellant issued notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act? (2) Whether the appellant preserved right of recovery on defendants against the carrier? 13. The points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:- (1) Whether the appellant issued notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act? (2) Whether the appellant preserved right of recovery on defendants against the carrier? (3) Whether the entire consignment was damaged in transit and received in damaged condition and what was the extent of loss? (4) Whether the respondents are right in rejecting the legitimate claim of the appellant and whether the respondents are jointly and severally liable to settle the claim? (5) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? (6) To what relief, the parties are entitled to? 14. Point Nos. 1 and 2 A perusal of Ex.D.21 would go to show that the appellant has sent notice in the form of letter through RPAD to the Branch Manager, M/s. Transport Corporation of India Ltd. indicating the value of the damages and the claim, and the said notice shall be treated as notice issued in terms of Section 10 of the Carriers Act. Therefore, we do not have any hesitation to hold that Ex.D.21 is a sufficient notice issued under Section 10 of the Carriers Act to the carrier, and thereby, the appellant has preserved the right of recovery on the respondents against the carrier. Hence, the findings of the learned Single Judge in regard to Issue No. 4 that no notice was issued under Section 10 of the Carriers Act and that, the plaintiff has not preserved right of recovery against the carrier are set aside. Accordingly, Point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the appellant. 15. Point Nos. 3 and 4 (i) Admittedly, the appellant entrusted the project work on contract basis to BHEL. The materials for the purchase includes condenser tubes to be dispatched by BHEL and their vendors from various parts of India. As per the purchase order placed to BHEL, all equipment will be dispatched by BHEL to the site on freight Today and uninsured. However, sufficient advance intimation shall be given by the appellant (TNEB) for insuring the material in time. Therefore, the appellant needs to make its own arrangement for transit insurance. Accordingly, in the present case, the appellant took open marine Policy for transit insurance from the first respondent for the materials to be transported to MTPP, Mettur Dam from various places to be supplied by BHEL. Therefore, the appellant needs to make its own arrangement for transit insurance. Accordingly, in the present case, the appellant took open marine Policy for transit insurance from the first respondent for the materials to be transported to MTPP, Mettur Dam from various places to be supplied by BHEL. Accordingly, the subject consignment was also insured with the respondents. It would be beneficial to refer to the procedure to be followed for paying the insurance premium, which reads as follows:- (a) BHEL and various other sub vendors of BHEL supplied the entire material for the project work. The carrier was booked by BHEL for transporting of the materials required for the project from various places. (1) After receiving RR/LR's from BHEL, a declaration form would be sent to the first defendant's branch office. (2) Premium to be paid for the consignment declared will be calculated by the first defendant and an advice bill for the premium to be paid by the plaintiff (TNEB) will be intimated. (3) Based on the advice bill for the premium to be paid received from first defendant payment will be made. (ii) The Suit material, 2063 Cupro-Nickel Tubes were dispatched by M/s. Alcobex, Jodhpur, sub vendor of BHEL, vide consignment LR No. V-18511 dated 29.03.1938, through Transport Corporation of India. The entire consignment was received by the appellant in a damaged condition on 11.10.1988 and only 2 nos. of condenser tubes were declared suitable by BHEL and rest of other tubes, numbering 2061, were declared unfit for insertion to condenser. (iii) As noticed above, since the appellant had taken open marine policy for transit insurance from the first respondent for the materials to be transported to MTPP from various places by BHEL and sub vendors of BHEL, they made a claim on 04.01.1989 for a sum of Rs. 62,32,814/- towards loss caused due to the damage. However, after a prolonged correspondences, the first respondent's Branch Office at Mettur Dam, sent a letter dated 03.01.1991, indicating that as per Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, the claim cannot be processed. It would not be out of place to mention here that, the appellant has in fact, to minimize the loss, took all possible efforts and attempted to re-use the damaged materials after repair. It would not be out of place to mention here that, the appellant has in fact, to minimize the loss, took all possible efforts and attempted to re-use the damaged materials after repair. However, as per the minutes of meeting held on 22.02.1989, at Hardwar, BHEL had expressed that they would not give any guarantee for reprocessed tubes. Hence, the appellant took decision not to reprocess and moreover, the materials used in the power plant should serve for long periods. BHEL was the contractor for supply, erection and commissioning of the project and without their acceptance, the reprocessed tubes could not be used. Hence, the appellant had no other way but to go in for new tubes as advised by BHEL. (iv) We have also gone through the minutes of meeting held on 22.02.1989, in which, the Officials of the BHEL, the Officials of the appellant/TNEB, the Surveyor of the first respondent took part, and they discussed about the re-use of the damaged materials. Though the appellant was willing to repair the consignment and use the same, their main contractor, BHEL had made it clear that damaged tubes should not be re-used. In the event of damaged materials are being re-processed and re-used, BHEL will not provide any warranty for the same. Hence, under these circumstances only, the appellant, without any other option, dropped the idea of repairing the condenser tubes. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant has taken all possible efforts to minimize the loss and attempted to re-use the damaged materials after repair, since the main contractor, BHEL had expressed that they would not give any guarantee for reprocessed tubes, the appellant took decision not to reprocess and made a claim for compensation in respect of the damaged consignment. Since 2061 tubes out of 2063 tubes were damaged in transit and the extent of loss caused is Rs. 62,32,814/- the appellant made a claim for the said sum. Therefore, we hold that the claim made by the appellant at Rs. 62,32,814/- is just and proper and they are entitled to the same. Further, it is pertinent to mention here, a co-insurance clause has been included in the Policy, which is extracted below:- (a) It is hereby understood and agreed that the word "Company" wherever appearing in the Policy shall be read as:- 1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. 62,32,814/- is just and proper and they are entitled to the same. Further, it is pertinent to mention here, a co-insurance clause has been included in the Policy, which is extracted below:- (a) It is hereby understood and agreed that the word "Company" wherever appearing in the Policy shall be read as:- 1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 4. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (b) The liability of each of the Companies is as follows:- 1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 40% 2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 20% 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 20% 4. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 20% (c) Payment of full premium to United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Mettur Dam will constitute a payment in full to all the Companies and a receipt in full by all the Companies. (d) Notice given to the Company, in terms of the Policy conditions, will constitute a notice given to all the Companies. (v) Thus, as per the above co-insurance clause in the Policy, the respondents are liable to pay the claims, if any, in the aforesaid proportion. However, the respondents rejected the claim stating that as per Section 64 VB, the claim cannot be processed, when the fact remains that in respect of similar claims made by the appellant under the same declaration No. 376/Ex.P.5, the claims were allowed by the respondents. However, since the present claim made under the same declaration No. 376 is in respect of larger quantities, the claim was denied by the respondents. Therefore, we hold that the consignment was damaged in transit and was received in a damaged condition and the appellant made a legitimate claim for the loss and the respondents are not right in rejecting the legitimate claim made by the appellant, and they being insurers, as evident from Ex.P.1, are bound to settle the claim as per the proportion as agreed between them in Ex.P.1 Accordingly, Point Nos.3 and 4 are answered against the respondents. 16. Point No. 5 As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant there is no privily of contract between the appellant and the carrier. The carrier/transporter was engaged by the consignor of the goods (BHEL) and hence, the appellant has not impleaded the transporter as party to the suit proceedings. 16. Point No. 5 As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant there is no privily of contract between the appellant and the carrier. The carrier/transporter was engaged by the consignor of the goods (BHEL) and hence, the appellant has not impleaded the transporter as party to the suit proceedings. Further, there is no breach of contract between the carrier and the appellant to make any claim against the carrier. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not right in holding that appellant should not be non-suited on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party, viz. carrier. Hence, we hold that there is no necessity to implead the carrier as party to the suit proceedings. Accordingly, Issue No. 5 is also answered in favour of the appellant. Point No. 6 17. As stated above, the appellant is entitled to make a claim against the respondents to the extent of entire 2061 cupro nickel tubes. As per the report of the surveyor, marked as Ex.D.26, the salvage value of the damaged 2061 tubes was assessed at Rs. 17,00,000/- Though the appellant has made a claim for a sum of Rs. 62,32,814/- the Surveyor determined the loss at Rs. 45,00,000/- after deducting the salvage value of Rs. 17,00,000/- from the total claim of Rs. 62,32,814/-. In fact, PW-1/appellant, during cross-examination has categorically stated that BHEL offered to take the damaged tubes on salvage value at the rate of Rs. 63.83 kg. Therefore, in the present case, as stated in the written submission of the respondents, the total weight of the goods is 27671 kg, the salvage value works out to Rs. 17,66,239 (i.e. 27671 kg x Rs. 63.83). However, since as per the final report of the surveyor, Ex.D.26, the salvage value of the damaged consignment was assessed at Rs. 17,00,000/- the said salvage value is required to be deducted from and out of the claim made by the appellant. 18. 17,66,239 (i.e. 27671 kg x Rs. 63.83). However, since as per the final report of the surveyor, Ex.D.26, the salvage value of the damaged consignment was assessed at Rs. 17,00,000/- the said salvage value is required to be deducted from and out of the claim made by the appellant. 18. Insofar as the point urged by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 3 is concerned, that it is purely due to the negligence on the part of the appellant in not paying the freight charges, the goods were moved from one place to another place and during such transit, the consignment was damaged and hence, certain percentage of liability has to be fastened on the appellant is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant took the insurance policy only from the place of despatch to the place of destination. Therefore, no liability can be fastened on the appellant on account of the delay caused in taking delivery of the consignment from the destination. However, we are not inclined to accept such contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. 19. Admittedly, the consignment was despatched by M/s. Alcobex Metals Pvt. Ltd. Jodhpur on 29.03.1988, and the same reached the carrier on 24.07.1988. Since there was some dispute regarding payment of freight charges and the appellant refused to pay such charges, the carrier was forced to take back the materials to Bangalore and it was kept in their godown, and thereafter, it were delivered to the appellant on 11.10.1988. Thus, it is clear that the consignment was lying in the godown for a period of atleast 2½ months by the consignee. Since the appellant hesitated to pay the freight charges, the consignment was subjected to move from one place to another place, and during such transit, there is every likelihood for the consignment to get damaged. Further, we would like to point that, once the consignment reached the destination, the appellant ought to have taken immediate steps to take delivery of the same to the place of business instead of bargaining with the officials/workmen of the carrier stating that in terms of the Policy condition, they are not liable to pay the freight charges. Therefore, for the mistake attributable to the appellant, the respondents cannot be mulcted by asking them to pay the entire compensation. Therefore, for the mistake attributable to the appellant, the respondents cannot be mulcted by asking them to pay the entire compensation. Hence, we are inclined to fix some percentage of liability on the part of the appellant also, and it would be appropriate to fix 50% liability on the appellant. 20. It is an undisputed fact that the total loss caused due to the damage of 2061 cupro nickel tubes is Rs. 62,32,814/- and as stated supra, the appellant is entitled for the same. The salvage value assessed by the surveyor in respect of the damaged material is Rs. 17,00,000/- and if a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- is deducted from the claim made by the appellant, i.e. Rs. 62,32,000/- rounded off to Rs. 62,00,000/- the same works out to Rs. 45,00,000/-. Since in view of our findings in the preceding para in regard to negligent aspect of the appellant, we fix 50% liability on the appellant, the remaining 50% liability is fastened on the respondents to settle the claim. Therefore, if 50% is deducted from Rs. 45,00,000/- the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 22,50,000/-. Insofar as the interest portion is concerned, we are inclined to grant 6% interest p.a. 21. In the result, the Original Side Appeal is allowed and the respondents are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 22,50,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing the suit till the date of realization to the appellant as per the proportion of liability agreed between them in Ex.P.1 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.