JUDGMENT Sudesh Bansal, J. - This statutory appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been filed against the judgment dated 30-4-1991 in TA-I-94/90, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') whereby and whereunder the Tribunal has held entitled the applicant appellant for the cost of undelivered goods to the tune of Rs. 1,38,283.02 p, and also cost of suit Rs. 9615/- and court fee and other fee Rs. 2732/-, total Rs. 1,50,630.02 p, but has denied the interest on cost of undelivered goods, by applying provisions of Section 78(d) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (in short 'Act of 1890'). 2. The facts of the case are that for non delivery of consignment of 51.33 MT of rounds booked on 29-7-1980 from Dungarpur to Jaipur vide RR No. 804765 in wagon No. CR 73607, which was not reach at the destination station, the claimant filed claim petition for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 1,90,913.02 as compensation (Rs. 1,38,283.02 price of goods + Rs. 52,630 interest thereon) before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bench at Jaipur. Respondents did not dispute the factum of non delivery of consignment, and counsel for respondents before the Tribunal admitted that it is a case of complete non delivery of consignment and so the applicant appellant is entitled to get compensation. 3. The Tribunal as per admission on the part of respondents assessed value of undelivered goods on the basis of bills as Rs. 1,38,283.02 p. and passed the impugned judgment dated 30-4-1991. Although the applicant appellant claimed interest at the rate of 12% on the value of undelivered goods, but the Tribunal held that the applicant appellant is not entitled to get interest under Section 78(d) of the Act of 1890, as it is nothing but an indirect damage. It is needless to reiterate that although interest has been denied, but court fee and other fees were allowed. 4. The applicant appellant has filed this appeal only to limited extent claiming interest on the value of undelivered goods of Rs. 1,38,283.02 p, which has already been decreed in its favour by the Tribunal. It may be noticed that respondents have not filed any appeal against the impugned judgment dated 30-4-1991. 5. 4. The applicant appellant has filed this appeal only to limited extent claiming interest on the value of undelivered goods of Rs. 1,38,283.02 p, which has already been decreed in its favour by the Tribunal. It may be noticed that respondents have not filed any appeal against the impugned judgment dated 30-4-1991. 5. The issue involved in present appeal is only to the effect whether the applicant appellant is entitled for interest on the amount of Rs. 1,38,283.02 p. from the date of filing claim petition, and if yes, at which rate? 6. Heard counsel for parties and perused material available on record. 7. The issue arising in the instant appeal has been considered by the coordinate bench of Rajasthan High Court in appeals of similar nature involving similar issue of entitlement of interest on cost of undelivered goods. The coordinate bench of Rajasthan High Court in M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited v. Union of India, [SB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 457/1995, decided on 3-6-2005] dealt with similar issue and held that the appellant is entitled for interest on the original amount of cost of undelivered goods at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing claim petition till payment. Similar view has been taken by the coordinate bench in M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited v. Union of India, [SB Civil Regular First Appeal No. 216/1992, decided on 3-6-2005] and M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited v. Union of India, [SB Civil Regular First Appeal No. 217/1992, decided on 3-6-2005]. 8. This court vide order dated 21-7-2022 asked counsel for both parties that as to why the issue related to interest, involving in present appeal, should not be decided following the judgment dated 3-6-2005 in M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited v. Union of India in SB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 457/1995. 9. Counsel for both parties have conceded and are not in a position to convince the court to take a different view than taken by the coordinate bench of this court in M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited v. Union of India, [SB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 457/1995, decided on 3-6-2005]. Neither any of the party has informed that the judgment dated 3-6-2005 has been reversed subsequently. Neither any of the party has informed that the judgment dated 3-6-2005 has been reversed subsequently. Therefore, this court is of considered opinion that the present appeal deserves to be decided following the judgment of coordinate bench dated 3-6-2005 in M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited v. Union of India, [SB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 457/1995]. 10. The coordinate bench passed the judgment dated 3-6-2005 in M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited v. Union of India, [SB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 457/1995] considering Section 78(d) of the Act of 1890 and relying on judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. The Steel Stock Holders Syndicate, ( AIR 1976 Supreme Court 879) which was later on relied upon in Union of India v. Smt. Laxmipati ( AIR 1995 MP 90 ) and Union of India v. A. Janardhanan ( AIR 1998 Madras 272) and held that the claimant was entitled for interest on the locked up capital. 11. The Tribunal declined the interest on the ground that interest is nothing but damage over damages which cannot be allowed in view of Section 78(d) of the Act of 1890, which reads as under:- "78. Exoneration from responsibility in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this chapter, a railway administration shall not be responsible-(d) for any direct or consequential damages or for loss of particular market." 12. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. The Steel Stock Holders Syndicate (supra), considered this point at length and held that the plaintiff cannot claim damages by way of loss of profits or loss of market plus damages sustained by the actual loss or deterioration of goods. In such a case the plaintiff can claim only the actual loss in the value of goods caused by destruction, damage or deterioration and not loss of profit being remote damage which is not allowed by virtue of Section 78 (d) of the Act. It was further observed that where the plaintiff has merely claimed damages pure and simple and in order to assess the same had applied the yardstick of charging interest at a particular rate on the locked up capital for a considerable period. 13. It was further observed that where the plaintiff has merely claimed damages pure and simple and in order to assess the same had applied the yardstick of charging interest at a particular rate on the locked up capital for a considerable period. 13. In case of Union of India v. Smt. Laxmipati (supra), the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court held that "the object is not to deprive the claimant of a substantive relief which he would have obtained had the matter been litigated in Courts. If in the circumstances of a case a Court would have allowed interest of a claimant from the date of suit or from the date of decree, the Tribunal must necessarily possess that power otherwise the claimant would be deprived of a relief which he would have obtained before the constitution of the Tribunal." 14. The Madras High Court in case of Union of India v. A. janardhanan (supra) while taking similar view held that principles of Section 34 CPC are applicable and it is open to Railway Claims Tribunal to award interest as per Section 34 of CPC. 15. This court in the judgment dated 3-6-2005 relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. The Steel Stock Holders Syndicate's case (supra) held that the interest not being the remote damages as indicated in Section 78(d) of the Act of 1890, but only damages on the locked up capital for a considerable period on account of lapses and latches on the part of the railway authorities and by virtue of the provisions of Section 34 of CPC, the appellant is entitled to get the interest on the original amount. 16. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, there is no reason to take a different view than taken by the coordinate Bench of this High Court in other appeals, referred hereinabove. Thus, the appellant will be entitled for interest on the decreetal amount of Rs. 1,38,283.02 p. at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till payment and the impugned judgment dated 30-4-1991 stands modified accordingly. Decree be framed accordingly. Appeal stands partly allowed. 17. Record be sent back.