1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.705 OF 2003 M/s.Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd & Anr. .. Plaintiffs versus M/s.Rajpal Roadlines Pvt Ltd. .. Defendants Ms.S.S.Dwivedi i/by P.N.Sadarangani for the plaintiffs. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 3rd December 2009. JUDGMENT: . The suit is shown under the caption “Undefended Suits for Ex-parte Decree”. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for recovery of sum of Rs. 1,50,131/- with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation. The 1st plaintiff had entrusted suit consignment to the defendant on 8th December 1994 for carriage and safe delivery from Kandla to Calcutta. The goods forming part of consignment were insured with the 2nd plaintiffs under a policy of insurance. There was a short delivery of consignment and accordingly the defendant issued shortage certificate dated 10th February 1995. A survey of the suit consignment was conducted by surveyors who submitted report dated 31st 2 January 1995. The 1st plaintiffs on 20th February 1995 lodged a claim with the defendant. However, by letter dated 2nd March 1995 the defendant declined to settle the claim. The 1st plaintiffs have issued a letter of subrogation dated 24th July 1995 in favour of the 2nd plaintiffs. As compensation/damages were not paid by the defendant, the present suit has been filed. 3. The plaintiffs have filed an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of one Ravindranath Raghunath Waghmare, Assistant Manager of the 2nd plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have tendered the original documents alongwith a list. The plaintiffs have produced a lorry receipt dated 8th December 1994 issued by the defendant in favour of the 1st plaintiffs. The original shortage certificate dated 10th February 1995 issued by the defendant is also produced. The survey report of the surveyors is produced which shows that there was a shortage of 4.750 metric tonnes. The plaintiffs have produced other documents on which reliance was placed in the plaint including a letter of subrogation. The defendant has not cross-examined the aforesaid witness of the plaintiffs. The affidavit and the documents prove the claim of the plaintiffs. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, further interest deserves to be granted at the rate of 9% per annum. 4. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : 3 (a) There will be a decree in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) with modification that further interest will be payable at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. (b) The plaintiffs will be entitled to refund of Court fees as per the rules. (A.S.OKA,J)