The liability of a courier service for loss or damage to a consignment is limited to the amount specified in the contract between the parties.

K. Ramaswamy, J.—Leave granted.

We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the appellate order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 17.1.96 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 are that the respondent-plaintiff-manufacturer appears to have an agreement with a German buyer for 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 24.5.90; 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 DM35,000 instead of 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 @ 18% from May 25,1990 till date of realisation with cost. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

3. It is contended by Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the ‘Act’) is a beneficial legislation envisaged to accord expeditious and inexpensive relief to the consumer; when the Commission gave a finding that there was a deficiency in service, the National Commission was wrong in law to reduce the liability of US $100 contained in the receipt. There is no consensus ad idem between the appellant and the respondent who is. a courier vis-a-vis the appellant. Therefore, the National Commission was wrong in awarding deficiency amount only to the extent of US $100. He seeks to contend that until there is an agreement by the appellant by consensus ad idem with the respondent for carriage of the invoice with limited liability, it must be presumed that in the event of non-delivery of the cover thereof, the resultant damages must be born by the courier. The State Commission would be entitled to award the difference of the damages to the appellant. The State Commission, therefore, was right in awarding the damages. We find no force in the contention.

4. 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 thereof. When the parties have contracted and limited their liabilities, the question arises: whether the State Commission or the National Commission under the Act could give relief for damages in excess of the limits prescribed under the contract ?

5. It is true that the limit of damages would depend upon the terms of the contract and facts in each case. In Anson’s Laws of Contract, 24th Edn. at page 152, on exemption clause with regard to notice of a printed clause, it was stated that a person who signs a document containing contractual terms is normally bound by them even though he has not read them, and even though he is ignorant of their precise legal effect. But if the document is not signed, being merely delivered to him, then the question arises : whether the terms of the contract were adequately brought to his notice ? The terms of the contract have ela