A bailee is liable for the loss of or damage to goods bailed to him if he fails to take reasonable care of the goods.

Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President—This appeal has been filed by the OP against the order of the District Forum -II (D.F.) dated 22.2.94.

2. Briefly the facts are that OP-1 is carrying on business of repairing air-conditioners and it is alleged that Mr. O.P. Batra and. Mr. Ranjeev Batra, O.P.-2 & O.P.-3 are its proprietors. The complainant had installed at her residence one two-ton air-conditioner of the General Electric make. On or about 13-5-92 the complainant noticed that her air-conditioner was not cooling properly. She contacted OP-1 Mr. Ranjeev Batra, O.P-3 deputed an engineer to examine the air-conditioner. He, it is alleged, informed the complainant, that the air-conditioner would have to be taken to the workshop for service. Accordingly, it was removed to OP-l's workshop on 14.5.92 for repairs.

3. On 15.5.92, a fire broke out in the workshop and a part of the air-conditioner alongwith other goods in the workshop was burnt. The complainant asked the OPs to replace the air-conditioner with a similar foreign made air-conditioner or pay her the amount to enable her to purchase a new air-conditioner but they expressed their inability to do so. Consequently she filed a complaint before the District Forum.

4. The OPs contested the claim of the complainant and inter-alia pleaded that OP-3 was the sole proprietor of Cool India, OP-1 and OP2 had nothing to do with OP-1. It is further pleaded by them that the contract of repair/ servicing of the air-conditioner became impossible to be performed as in the fire which broker out in the workshop, the air-conditioner had been partly burnt. OP-1 had agreed to reassemble the air-conditioner with the old compressor and thus a new contract had come into existence. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to recover the price of the airconditioner or ask the OPs to replace the airconditioner.

5. It is next pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of OPs and consequently no deficiency in service can be assigned to them. They also averred that they were ready to assemble the air-conditioner with the old compressor as a gesture of good will and to maintain business relations at the cost of the complainant but no guarantee or warranty can be given regarding its functioning.

6. The District Forum came to the conclusion that due to the fire the contract was frustrated within the meaning of Section 56 of the Contract Act. However, that does not absolve the OPs of their responsibilities. The A.C. had been taken by them to their workshop and therefore, u/Sec. 151 of the Contract Act they were bound to take as much care of the goods as a man of ordinary prudence would under the similar circumstances had taken of his own goods. They could be absolved of their liability, if they could show that they had taken the amount of care as described in Section 151 but there was no evidence on the record to show that they had taken any steps to prevent breaking out of the fire. They also did not get the goods in the workshop insured which was expected from them. It was further held that it could not be held that OP-2 had no connection with the business carried on in the name of OP-1. Therefore, he is also liable to compensate the complainant alongwith OP-1 and OP-3. Consequently they directed the OPs to pay Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant as the price of the air-conditioner with interest @18% p.a. from 1.6.92, Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the proceedings, within a period of two months. The OPs have come up in appeal against the said order to the Commission.

7. The learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that in view of the findings of the District Forum that the contract stood frustrated and had become void, it was not justified in granting a decree of Rs. 60,000/- in favour of the complainant/respondent. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that Section 56 of the Contract Act is not applicable to the case