The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission has upheld a ₹66.53 lakh order against BVC Brinks after it delivered a diamond consignment to Hong Kong despite “HOLD” instructions. The commission rejected Brinks’ liability and consumer-status arguments, holding that the release caused financial loss and amounted to deficiency in service.

Brinks has been directed to compensate a Mumbai jeweller after a diamond consignment was delivered despite instructions to hold the shipment | Representational Image

Mumbai, September 28, 2026: The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal filed by a Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC)-based company, BVC Brinks Diamond & Jewellery Services LLP, thereby upholding the South Mumbai District Consumer Commission’s directions to pay Rs 66.53 lakh back to the South Mumbai-based jeweller.

Commission Upholds Consumer Commission Order

The commission in its orders held, “….The terms and conditions are mentioned on House Airway Bill (HAWB) which cannot be read out by naked eyes and requires magnifying glasses to read the same. It is to be noted that the said contract was renewed from time to time. However, terms and conditions of such contract are printed in a very small and fine words, which are not readable with naked eyes, cannot give remedy of defence to the present appellant. The citations placed in support of the contentions in the present appeal are not supporting to the case of the appellant, as the complaint itself is self-explanatory that the complainant is carrying the business for the purpose of earning the livelihood for himself and his family members. Therefore, the complainant is qualifying as ‘Consumer’ as defined under Section 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Further we notice that there cannot be a limited liability, once the damage is caused in spite of having the ‘Hold’ instructions to the present appellant for delivering the consignment. In view of that we come to the conclusion that the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Commission is well reasoned, just and proper and does not require any interference. The appellant has failed to produce the cogent and sufficient ground to succeed in the present appeal. The order of the district commission is proper and legal.”

The commission in its orders was very clear on the part that the release of the consignment despite the ‘HOLD’ instructions amounted to deficiency in service.

`;

Diamond Consignment Sent To Hong Kong

The complaint was filed by Darshan Jhaveri, sole proprietor of Aashi Exports, based in Bhuleshwar, who had been using Brinks’ shipping services for several years. In October 2018, Jhaveri sent a consignment of cut and polished diamonds worth $91,146.60, equivalent to Rs 66,53,658, to Rainforest Trading Company in Hong Kong. He specifically instructed Brinks not to deliver the parcel until payment was received from the consignee.

Despite the instruction, Brinks delivered the consignment to the Hong Kong consignee. The company argued that under the terms of HAWB, it was not obliged to hold shipments pending release instructions and that the declared value of carriage was only Rs 1,000. It also contended that Jhaveri was not a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act as the transaction was commercial in nature.

District Commission Had Awarded Rs 66.53 Lakh

The District Consumer Commission, South Mumbai, had rejected these contentions and in January 2023 directed Brinks to pay Rs 66.53 lakh towards the value of the consignment, Rs 50,000 for mental torture and Rs 20,000 towards litigation costs. Brinks challenged the order before the State Commission.

The State Commission noted that Brinks itself had admitted through emails dated January 16 and February 15, 2019, that the consignment had been released “due to oversight” despite the HOLD instructions. The commission held that delivering the shipment without waiting for release instructions caused financial loss to Jhaveri and amounted to deficiency in service.

Liability Limitation Rejected

The commission also rejected Brinks’ argument that Jhaveri was not a consumer merely because he was running a proprietorship business. It observed that the complaint stated that the business was being carried out for earning the livelihood of Jhaveri and his family, bringing him within the definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Also Watch:

Importantly, the commission refused to accept Brinks’ reliance on the limitation of liability printed on the reverse of the airway bill. It noted that the contractual terms were printed in “very small and fine” print and were difficult to read with the naked eye, requiring a magnifying glass. The commission held that such terms could not be relied upon to limit the company’s liability in the circumstances.

The State Commission consequently dismissed Brinks’ appeal and confirmed the January 31, 2023, order of the District Consumer Commission.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/

Add As a

Trusted Source