JUDGMENT : M.L. Mehta, J. 1. This suit for recovery is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking recovery of suit amount of Rs. 25,85,135.75/-. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff had sent seventeen containers of medicines and equipments from India to Mangolia for its customer i.e. Ministry of Health of Mangolia. The defendant No. 1 is a Delhi based Indian associate of defendant No.2 which is based in Germany. The defendant No. 1 had issued freight invoices in respect of the said containers on taking complete payment of freight of USD 26557/- for transportation. The containers were to go by sea at Chinese port Xingang and thereafter, from the port by land by one IFFC, a Mangolian agent of defendant No. 1. The containers reached this port Xingang sometime in March-April, 2000. On account of some dispute between the defendants and the IFFC, the containers were held by IFFC and were not released despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff to the defendants as also to the IFFC. This was despite the fact that the defendant No. 1 had confirmed by various communications that the entire freight charges were paid by the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff was suffering because of loss of reputation as also harassment, it, ultimately got paid the USD 26557/- to the IFFC by M/s. Soimex International Ltd., which debited this amount to plaintiff account with interest @ 18% p.a. The plaintiff has claimed this amount of USD 26557/- @ Rs. 50 per USD, which is equivalent to Rs. 13,27,850/- and a sum of Rs. 6,57,285.75 on account of interest thereon. In addition, the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as damages on account of loss of reputation and harassment at the hands of the defendants. Thus, plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs.25,85,135/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the defendants jointly and severally. 2. The defendants did not choose to contest the suit and were proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff has examined its Secretary and Authorized Representative Mr.Pankaj Goyal as its only witness. He has filed his affidavit of evidence. He has been authorized by a resolution of the company vide Ex.PW1/3 to depose on its behalf. He has reiterated the averments as set out in the plaint. The plaintiff has examined its Secretary and Authorized Representative Mr.Pankaj Goyal as its only witness. He has filed his affidavit of evidence. He has been authorized by a resolution of the company vide Ex.PW1/3 to depose on its behalf. He has reiterated the averments as set out in the plaint. He has also produced on record the correspondence that ensued between the plaintiff and the defendants and M/s. Soimex International Ltd. From the documents, it is seen that freight invoices were raised by the defendant No. 1 at the time of booking of goods by the plaintiff with the defendant No. 1. These are duly proved as Ex.PW1/13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19. The PW1 stated that two invoices, which were given exhibits as Ex.PW1/17 and 20 in the affidavit of evidence, could not be traced and thus, the claim in respect of those was withdrawn. He stated that as per the invoices which are proved as above, the plaintiff claims USD 18,746.15/- instead of USD 26557/- as averred in the plaint, which is equivalent to Rs. 9,37,300/- and interest thereon comes to Rs. 4,63,963/-. In this way, the witness stated the plaintiff to be entitled to recover Rs. 19,01,283/- including Rs. 5 lakhs for damages from the defendants. 3. The witness further stated that since no concrete results came out despite repeatedly contacting the defendants, it had written letters dated 8.6.2000, 12.6.2000 and 28.6.2000 to the defendants (Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/6 respectively). The defendant No. 1, vide its letter dated 1.6.2000 also confirmed the plaintiff having already paid the complete freight charges. This defendant again vide letter dated 28.06.2000 (Ex.PW1/8) confirmed receipt of full payment of freight. M/s. Soimex International Ltd. informed the plaintiff vide letter of 19.06.2002 (Ex.PW1/10) of having paid USD 26557/- on behalf of the plaintiff and debited the same in the Account of the plaintiff. This was again confirmed by the defendant No. 1 vide its letter dated 11.12.2000 (Ex.PW1/9). Vide this letter, the defendant No. 1 also assured the plaintiff to settle the matter within two days. PW1 also stated that the defendant No. 1 did not refund the amount despite repeated assurances and also legal notice dated 13.12.2002 (Ex.PW1/21). 4. This was again confirmed by the defendant No. 1 vide its letter dated 11.12.2000 (Ex.PW1/9). Vide this letter, the defendant No. 1 also assured the plaintiff to settle the matter within two days. PW1 also stated that the defendant No. 1 did not refund the amount despite repeated assurances and also legal notice dated 13.12.2002 (Ex.PW1/21). 4. From the un-assailed statement of PW1 and the documents proved by him, it stands proved that the plaintiff had already paid the freight charges amounting to USD 26557 to the defendant No. 1 vide the invoices, as noted above. It was on account of some dispute between the defendants and their Mangolian agent IFFC that the goods were held up by IFFC, and were not released until the plaintiff arranged to make payment of USD 26557 to IFFC through its agent M/s. Soimex International Ltd. From this, it would appear that it is not that the plaintiff was made to pay this amount of USD 26557 again, but, had suffered due to harassment and in reputation. It was for no fault of the plaintiff that the goods were not delivered to its purchaser in time and got considerably delayed. The defendant No. 1, despite repeated assurances, did not settle the dispute with IFFC and also did not refund the amount to the plaintiff. This was also despite that a legal notice dated 13.12.2002 was got issued by the plaintiff. 5. From the above discussion, it stands proved that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the refund of USD 18,746, the equivalent of which is Rs. 9,37,300/- and also interest @ 18% p.a. thereon, which comes to Rs. 4,63,963/-. In this way, the plaintiff is entitled to recover as a refund from the defendant a sum of Rs. 14,01,263/-. Having noted that the plaintiff suffered harassment and loss of reputation, the damages quantified at Rs. 5 lakhs by the plaintiff appears to be just and reasonable. Consequently, the plaintiff is found to be entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 19,01,263/- from the defendants jointly and severally. Hence a decree of recovery of this amount is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 5 lakhs by the plaintiff appears to be just and reasonable. Consequently, the plaintiff is found to be entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 19,01,263/- from the defendants jointly and severally. Hence a decree of recovery of this amount is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The defendants are ordered to pay the above amount within a month from the date of this order, failing which, the plaintiff would also be entitled to recover the same with interest @ 12% p.a. till date of realization. The decree sheet be drawn accordingly. 6. Suit stands disposed of.