Case: Bharathi Knitting Company Vs. Dhl Worldwide Express (Courier Division of Airfreight Limited )

The admitted facts are that the appellant-plaintiff manufacturer appears to have an agreement with a German buyer for the summer season, 1990, and consigned certain goods with documents sent in a cover on May 25, 1990, containing (1) invoice No. 32 ; (2) packaging list ; (3) original export certificate and certificate of origin No. T/WG/001316, dated May 24, 1990 ; and (4) original GSP Form "A" No. E1. It would appear that the cover did not reach the destination. Consequently, though the duplicate copies were subsequently sent by the date of receipt of the consignment, the season was over. Resultantly, the consignee agreed to pay only DM 35, 000 instead of the invoice value DM 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 DM 21, 469.63 equivalent to Rs. 4, 29, 392.60 which was ordered. The respondent carried the matter in appeal. The National Commission in the impugned order held that since the liability was only of an 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 per cent. from May 25, 1990, till date of realisation with cost. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

Court's reasoning:
We find no force in the contention.It is true that the Act is a protective legislation to make available inexpensive and expeditious summary remedy. There must be a finding that the respondent was responsible for the deficiency in service, the consequence of which would be that the appellant had incurred the liability for loss or damages suffered by the consumer due to deficiency in service thereofThe terms of the contract have elaborately been considered and decided. The details thereof are not necessary for us to pursue. It is seen that when a person signs a document which contains certain contractual terms, as rightly pointed out by Mr. R. F. Nariman, learned senior counsel, that normally parties are bound by such contract ; it is for the party to establish exception in a suit. When a party to the contract disputes the binding nature of the signed document, it is for him to prove the terms in the contract or circumstances in which he came to sign the documents need to be establishedIt is true, as contended by Mr. M. N. Krishnamani, that in an appropriate case, the Tribunal without trenching upon acute disputed question of facts may decide the validity of the terms of the contract based upon the fact situation and may grant remedy. But each case depends upon its own facts. In an appropriate case where there is an acute dispute of facts necessarily the Tribunal has to refer the parties to the original civil court established under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, or the appropriate State law to have the claims decided between the parties. But when there is a specific term in the contract, the parties are bound by the terms in the contract.In view of the above consideration and findings, we are of the opinion that the National Commission was right in limiting the liability undertaken in the contract entered into by the parties and in awarding the amount for deficiency in service to the extent of the liability undertaken by the respondent. Therefore, we do not think that there is any illegality in the order passed by the Commission.Shri Krishnamani has brought to our notice that there are number of judgments covering divergent views.In view of the view we have expressed above, it is now settled law and the Tribunals would follow the same. Lastly, it is contended that besides the amounts awarded by the State Commission, liberty may be given to the appellant to pursue the remedy available in law. It is needless to mention that the remedy available at law would be pursued according to law.