Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.18 seconds)

Bharathi Knitting Company vs Dhl Worldwide Express Courier Division ... on 9 May, 1996

In support of this contention, Opposite Party has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharathi Knitting Company Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier ~ reported in (1996)-4-SCC-704.  In the said case, Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when under specific terms of the contract liability to damages was limited then State Commission cannot order damages beyond that limit.  However, it is also necessary to refer to other observations of Their Lordships in the same case where it is observed that in a proper case the tribunal may enter into validity of the terms of contract.  We find that in view of those observations and considering the facts of the present case, this is an appropriate case to consider the terms of the agreement which, we have already discussed above to the effect that the Opposite Party, as mentioned in the agreement that he will be entitled to interest @ 20% if, there is a delay on the part of the Complainants to pay the amount then, logically Opposite Party is also liable to pay interest @ 20% to the Complainants if, there is a default on the part of the Opposite Party in rendering service.  Here, in the present case, the District Forum has not awarded interest @ 20% p.a.  However, District Forum has granted interest only @ 9% p.a.  It is material to note that the District Forum while granting interest @ 9% p.a. also considered the agreement between the parties and referred to clause (09) of the agreement dated 07/02/1992 and referred to provisions of Section-8 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 which provides for refund of the amount received together with interest @ 9% p.a. in case the promoter/builder fails to complete the construction within the period as agreed in the agreement executed between the parties.  Thus, we find that the order of granting interest @ 9% p.a. passed by the District Forum is just and proper.  Hence, we have accordingly answered the Point No.(01) above in the affirmative.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 388 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1