Sunil Hali, J. 1. Claiming to be a consumer, the complainant-respondent no.1 filed a complaint before the Divisional Consumers Protection Forum, Srinagar, the Forum for short, on account of deficiency of service in performance, in respect of a contract, entered into by the complainant with the appellant. 2. The complainant was dealing in Computers and Computer parts, under the name and style of M/S Hi-Tech Computers. It imported computers from a Delhi based Firm, namely, M/S Raj Man B-8 Depali Building 92 Nehru Place New Delhi, which, in turn, dispatched the consignment of computers valuing Rs. 1.50 lacs vide Air Way Bill no. 589-7142977-4161 dated January 14, 2002, through appellants agent for its air delivery to the complainant. The goods were expected to reach on January 16, 2002 but the appellant delayed its delivery by 14 days, and the goods accordingly reached the Srinagar Airport on January 30, 2002. 3. Alleging violation of the terms of the contract, the complainant lodged a complaint against the appellant, seeking compensation on the following counts: - 1. "Cost of goods booked Rs. 1,50,000/- 2. Loss of profit caused in the business due to non supply of goods Rs.0.50 lacs. 3. Compensation for the price of components already delivered to the owner of Sun Shine Public School at the time of accepting the offer of supply Rs.0.50 lac. 4. Damage caused to the reputation of the business Rs. 1.00 lac." 5. Compensation for mental agony and suffering Rs.1.00 lac." 4. The Forum, vide its judgment dated 08.04.2005 concluded that non-delivery of goods for 14 days had caused loss for which the complainant was required to be compensated. It accordingly awarded Rs. 30,000/- as compensation. 5. Dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Forum, the complainant appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar, State Commission for short, which, allowing the appeal on June 12, 2007, enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 2,97,298/-, break-up whereof is as under- 1. Rs.50,000/- as costs of the supplied items. 2. Rs. 1,50,000/- as costs of the consignment. 3. Rs.2,298/- as freight charges. 4. Rs.25,000/- as profit as would have been reasonable earned by the respondent on a consignment of Rs.2.00 lacs capital. 5. Rs.40,000/- on account of mental and physical torture. 6. Rs.30,000/- as costs of litigation. 6. The appellant questioned the State Commissions findings and order by its writ petition, OWP no. 3. Rs.2,298/- as freight charges. 4. Rs.25,000/- as profit as would have been reasonable earned by the respondent on a consignment of Rs.2.00 lacs capital. 5. Rs.40,000/- on account of mental and physical torture. 6. Rs.30,000/- as costs of litigation. 6. The appellant questioned the State Commissions findings and order by its writ petition, OWP no. 703/2007, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide its judgment of July 3, 2008. 7. Aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge, Jet-Airways India Limited, has appealed to this Court. 8. The question of law that arises in this Letters Patent Appeal is: - Whether the compensation awarded by the State Commission, for the loss of goods, on complainants refusal to lift the goods because of its late delivery, was justified? We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. The grievance of the complainant is that he had placed an order for supplying it computer items value whereof was to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- which amount had been paid by it to M/S Raj Man New Delhi. These computer items were to be supplied by the complainant to M/S Sun Shine Public School on or before January 16, 2002, for which it had entered into a contract with the school. It had already supplied computer components worth Rs. 50,000/- to the school and rest of the components were required to be supplied by 16th of January, 2002. Because of the delay of the appellant in delivering the goods sent by M/S Raj Man New Delhi to the complainant, it failed to execute the contract of supplying the computers to the school. 10. The complainant refused to accept the delivery of these goods on the ground that the goods had lost their utility. The consignment/components worth Rs. 1,50,000/- were for a specific purpose which stood defeated because of the delay on the part of the appellant. This according to the complainant was the loss caused to him. 11. In essence, the complainants case before the Forum was that since the goods were rendered useless, it was a loss to him, which was required to be paid to it. His further case is that because of the non-receipt of the computer components within time, complainants contract with the school was terminated and he suffered additional loss of Rs. 11. In essence, the complainants case before the Forum was that since the goods were rendered useless, it was a loss to him, which was required to be paid to it. His further case is that because of the non-receipt of the computer components within time, complainants contract with the school was terminated and he suffered additional loss of Rs. 50,000/-, i.e. cost of the items which he had supplied to the school in part performance of its contract with the school. 12. The scheme of the Consumer Protection Act envisages promotion and protection of the rights and interests of the consumers by providing a simple but speedier mode for redressal of their grievances. It envisages the procedure for filing a complaint and its determination by the Forum constituted under the Consumers Protection Act. The status of the complainant as a consumer and as to whether any deficiency had been caused to it, does not detain us as no dispute in this respect has been raised by the parties. All that engrosses our attention is as to whether the compensation has been awarded in accordance with the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumers Protection Act. 13. In order to determine the issue of compensation payable to the complainant in terms of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, regard needs to be had to the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, which, for facility of reference, is reproduced hereunder: - "12.Finding of the Divisional Forum (1) If, after the proceeding conducted under section 11, the Divisional Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defect specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to [do] one or more of the following things, namely: - (a) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question; (b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect. (c) to return to the complainant the price, or as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant; (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party. (c) to return to the complainant the price, or as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant; (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party. (e) to remove the defects or deficiencies in the services in question. (f) to discontinue the unfair trade practice or the restrictive trade practice or not to repeat them; (g) not to offer the hazardous goods for sale; (h) to withdraw the hazardous goods from being offered for sale; (i) to provide for the adequate costs to parties." For our purpose clause (d) of the above quoted Section needs to be analyzed. 14. The clause, in our view, stipulates that the defaulter is required to pay such amount by way of compensation to the consumer, for any loss or injury suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite party. The compensation may be awarded for any loss or injury. The Act does not provide any methodology for determination of the loss or injury. To determine compensation/damages, the Forums under the Act have thus to revert to the general law dealing with the awarding of compensation/damages. Law of Torts, as it has come to be developed, and the provisions of the Contract Act have thus to be kept in view while addressing the question. 15. Whether a particular act would be Tort, entitling one to compensation therefor, or a breach of contract, would depend on nature of right claimed to have been violated. 16. Where the violation pertains to the duty imposed by any law for the time being in force, the compensation payable would be under the law of Torts, and on the other hand, where the violation is of the duty imposed by the parties themselves, the compensation payable will be for breach of contract. 17. Applying the aforementioned principle, the compensation is liable to be determined, keeping in view the principles flowing from the Contract Act, in that, what is alleged by the complainant is violation of the contract of the parties. The complainant claims compensation for breach of contract in respect of the delivery of the goods by the appellant. 18. 17. Applying the aforementioned principle, the compensation is liable to be determined, keeping in view the principles flowing from the Contract Act, in that, what is alleged by the complainant is violation of the contract of the parties. The complainant claims compensation for breach of contract in respect of the delivery of the goods by the appellant. 18. The expression "compensation" is not ordinarily used as equivalent to Damages although Compensation may often be measured by the same rule as Damages, in case of a breach. 19. The term "compensation" signifies that it is given in recompense and equivalent rendered. Damages, on the other hand, constitute a sum of money claimed or adjudged to be paid on compensation for the loss or injury sustained. The meaning of the word "Damages": is nothing more than compensation which the Court determines in the circumstances of each case for the injury or loss sustained by the other party. Such compensation is not to be given for any distant and indirect loss or damage sustained because of the breach. 20. On the basis of the aforementioned principle, the complainant was required to prove the loss or injury it had suffered because of the negligence of the appellant in not delivering it the computer parts within time. 21. In law, providing damages for breach of contract, the party complaining the breach should, in so far as it may be done, be placed in the same position as it would have been had the contract been performed. It is to indemnify the person on account of loss suffered by him for the breach of contract committed by the opposite party. The legal relationship governing the performance and consequences flowing from breach, would be covered under the provisions of the contract Act. In case of the breach of contract, damages may be claimed by one party from the other which has violated its contractual obligation in some or the other way. The damages may be liquidated or un-liquidated. The liquidated damages are such damages as fixed by the parties in anticipation of the breach whereas the un-liquidated damages are those which are required to be assessed. Broadly the principle of underlying the assessment of the damages is to put the aggrieved party monetarily in the same position, as far as possible, in which it would have been if the contract had been performed. Broadly the principle of underlying the assessment of the damages is to put the aggrieved party monetarily in the same position, as far as possible, in which it would have been if the contract had been performed. Such loss may be compensated as the parties could have contemplated at the time of entering into contract. The party held liable to compensation shall be obliged to compensate for such losses as flow directly from its breach and not to distant and indirect losses. 22. The Consumer Protection Act had wide reach and the Commission has the jurisdiction even in cases of the "service" rendered by statutory and public authorities. The word "Compensation" under the Consumers Protection Act has been given very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical and mental sufferings or injury or loss. The complainant is required to prove such loss both in terms of breach as well as mental agony caused. While assessing the compensation and the damage, injury caused to the complainant has to be related to the contract in question whose breach is complained of. 23. Applying this principle to the present case, the compensation awarded by the State Commission on account of loss of goods, cannot be sustained, for the complainant had miserably failed to prove that the goods had lost their value on account of the breach of contract. There is no evidence on records to suggest that on account of the late delivery of the goods i.e. the computer components, the value of the goods was lost. 24. The State Commission has erred in saying that the goods had lost their utility on account of their alleged breach. The complainant had not produced any evidence before the Forum on the basis whereof the finding of the Commission, that goods had lost their utility, may be justified. 25. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that non-supply of the computer items by the appellant to the complainant, within time, would automatically render them useless, entitling the complainant to compensation equal to the cost of the goods. This is so because compensation on account of loss of goods may be permissible only if the complainant had proved, by leading evidence, that the goods had lost their value because of their delayed receipt by it. 26. This is so because compensation on account of loss of goods may be permissible only if the complainant had proved, by leading evidence, that the goods had lost their value because of their delayed receipt by it. 26. The compensation should be relatable to the loss incurred on account of breach in complying with the terms of the contract. Admittedly, there was no loss of goods nor had the goods lost their utility, in that, there is no evidence to support it. The goods were delivered to the complainant who has refused to accept them. Its refusal to accept the goods would not give it any right to claim compensation as such, unless it had proved that the goods had completely lost their value at the time when these were delivered to complainant. 27. Now coming to question as to whether compensation awarded on other counts is justifiable, the complainant states that he had supplied the goods worth Rs. 50,000/- to the school and the rest of the goods were to be supplied on or before 16th of January, 2002. This plea has not been contested by the appellant. 28. On account of termination of the contract, as stated by the complainant, in view of the deficiency of service provided by the appellant, it cannot claim the same from the school. This loss has occurred to the appellant on account of the breach of contract and the complainant is entitled to compensation on this count. 29. We do not find any error in the award of the State Commission, in far as it allows Rs. 30,000/- on account of the injury caused to the complainant for the failure of the appellant to deliver the goods within the stipulated time and another amount of Rs. 30,000/- as cost of litigation. 30. The complainant-respondent, in our view, is entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 1,10,000/- break up whereof is as under: - - Rs. 50,000/- as costs of the supplied items. - Rs.30,000/- on account of the injury suffered by the petitioner. - Rs.30,000/- as costs of litigation. 31. Accordingly, allowing the appellants writ petition and modifying the judgment of the State Commission, we direct the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- along with interest, as allowed by the State Commission, to respondent no. 1-complainant. 32. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed, as indicated above. 33. - Rs.30,000/- as costs of litigation. 31. Accordingly, allowing the appellants writ petition and modifying the judgment of the State Commission, we direct the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- along with interest, as allowed by the State Commission, to respondent no. 1-complainant. 32. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed, as indicated above. 33. The amount deposited by the appellant in this Court shall be released in favour of complainant-respondent no.1, on its proper identification.