BHARATHI KNITTING COMPANY versus DHL WORLDWIDE EXPRESS COURIER DIVISION OF AIRFREIGHT LTD.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 653 · Decided: 09-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

BHARATHI KNITTING COMPANY 
v. 
DHL WORLDWIDE EXPRESS COURIER DIVISION OF 
AIRFREIGHT LTD. 
MAY 9, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 : 
A 
B 
Courier Service-Deficiency in service-Claim f01"---Liability for C 
deficiency in service-&tent of-Directions to Tribunals under the Act to 
follow the principle settled in this case for awarding the amount for deficiency 
in service-Cover containing shipment documents not reached the consignee 
in time-As a result heavy loss suffered by consigneJ-Claim against 
Courier-Allowed by State Commissiolt-National Commission restricting D 
the Claim for deficiency in service only to the extent of the liability undertaken 
by the courier as contained in the receipt issued by the said Courie1--Held, 
when the parties have contracted and limited their liabilities, relief for 
damages cannot be given by the Tribunal under the Act in excess of the limits 
prescribed under the contract-In appropriate cases where there is an/acute E 
dispute of facts, necessarily the Tribunal has to refer the parties to civil court 
to have the claims decided between the parties-But when there is a specific 
term in the contract,_ parties .are bound by such tenn-National Commission 
was right in limiting the liability under-taken in the contract entered into 
. between the parties ai1d in awarding the amount for deficiency in se1vice to 
F 
the extent of the liability undertaken by the party. 
Contract Act, 1882 : 
Notice of a printed clause-When a person signs a document which 
contains certain contractual tenns, normally parties are bound by such con-
G 
tract-Wlten a party tq . a contract disputes binding nature of the signed 
docunient, it is for him to p~oVe the temis in the contract or circunzstances in, 
which he comes to sing the document. 
Anson's Laws of Contract, 24th Edn. at page 152 referred to. 
H 
653 
654 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
CJVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9057 of 
1996. 
From the .Judgment and Order dated 17.J.96 of the National Con-
sumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in F.A. No. 317 of 1993. 
B 
M.N. Krishnamani and K.K. Mani for the Appellant. 
R.F. Nariman, Shri Narian and Sandcep Narain for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
C 
Leave granted. 
We have heard leave counsel on both sides. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the appellant order of the 
National Consumer Disputes Redrcssal Commission, New Delhi dated 
D 17.J.1996 made in FA No. 317 of 1993 which in turn reversed the order of 
the State Forum Commission, Madras in O.P. No. 364/93 dated June 9, 
1993. The admitted facts arc that the respondcnt-plaintifl manufacturer 
appears to haVL: an agrecn1ent with a (Jerman buyer for summL:r season, 
1990 and consigned certain goods \Vith document~ ~ent in a cover on May 
E 
25, 1990 containing (1) invoice No. 32; (2) packaging list; (3) Original 
Export Certificate and certificate of ori1o>in No. T/WG/001316 dated 24.5.90; 
and (4) Original GSP From A NO. El. It would appear that the cover did 
not reach the destination. Consequently, though the duplicate copies \Vere 
subsequently sent by the date of receipt of the consignment, the season was 
over. Resultantly, the consignee agreed lo pay only OM 35,000 instead of 
F 
invoice value OM 56,469.63. As a result, the appellant laid the complaint 
before the State Commission for the difference of the loss incurred by the 
respondent in OM 21,469.63 equivalent to Rs. 4,29,392.60 which was or-
dered. The respondent carried the matter in appeal. The National Com-
mission in the impugned order held that since the liability was only of an 
G extent of US$ 100 as per the receipt, the appellant is entitled for deficiency 
of service only to that extent which is equivalent to Rs. 3,515 with interest 
at 18% from May 25, 1990 till date of realisation with cost. Thns, this 
appeal by special leave. 
It is contended by Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel 
H 
appearing for the appellant that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for 
BHARATHI KNJTIJNG CO. ~. DHL \VORLDWIDEEXPRESSCOURiER DVN. OF AJRFRElGHTLTD. 655 
short, the 'Act') is a beneficial legislation envisaged to accord expeditious A 
and inexpensive relief to the consumer; when the Commission gave a 
finding that there was a deficiency in service, the National Commission \Vas 
wrong in law to reduce the liability of US $ 100 contained in th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.