BHARATI KNITTING COMPANY VS DHL WORLDWIDE EXPRESS COURIER DIVISION OF AIRFREIGHT LTD.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

K.RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B.PATTANAIK
BHARATI KNITTING COMPANY – Appellant
Versus
DHL WORLDWIDE EXPRESS COURIER DIVISION OF AIRFREIGHT LTD. – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Adv., and Mr. K.K. Mani, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. R.F. Nariman, Sr. Adv., Mr. Narain & Mr. Sandeep Narain, Advocates.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? What is the liability limit for a courier service under the contract when loss or damage occurs? Question 2? What is the effect of signing the consignment note on contractual liability limitations for loss or damage? Question 3? What remedies exist if liability is limited by contract but a consumer claims deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act?

Key Points: - The contract limits liability for loss or damage to US $100 (Clause 6) (!) (!) - The consignment note was signed, binding the claimant to the contract terms, including liability limitation (!) (!) (!) - Consequential damages are excluded from liability (Clause 7) (!) - Important Notice advises insurance since limits apply (!) - National Commission and Supreme Court upheld the $100 limit and rejected higher damages (!) (!) - The Act is protective but cannot override contracted liability limits when terms are signed (!) (!) - The appeal was dismissed; no costs (!)

Question 1?

What is the liability limit for a courier service under the contract when loss or damage occurs?

Question 2?

What is the effect of signing the consignment note on contractual liability limitations for loss or damage?

Question 3?

What remedies exist if liability is limited by contract but a consumer claims deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act?

ORDER

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

K.RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B.PATTANAIKBHARATI KNITTING COMPANY – AppellantVersusDHL WORLDWIDE EXPRESS COURIER DIVISION OF AIRFREIGHT LTD. – Respondent