Archive · 29 Sep 2026
Mumbai Commission Upholds ₹66.53 Lakh Diamond Shipment Compensation Order
A Mumbai jeweller sent diamonds to a buyer in Hong Kong.
He told Brinks not to deliver them until the buyer paid.
Brinks delivered the diamonds anyway.
Brinks said its shipping contract limited how much it had to pay.
It also said the jeweller was not covered by consumer-protection law because he ran a business.
The consumer commission disagreed with both arguments.
It said delivering the package despite the hold instruction was a service failure.
Brinks must therefore pay the value of the diamonds, along with additional amounts ordered by the district commission.
The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission dismissed BVC Brinks Diamond & Jewellery Services LLP’s appeal.
Brinks delivered a diamond shipment to Hong Kong despite instructions to hold it until payment was received.
The consignment, sent by Aashi Exports, was valued at $91,146.60, or ₹66,53,658.
The District Consumer Commission ordered Brinks to pay ₹66.53 lakh, ₹50,000 for mental torture, and ₹20,000 in litigation costs.
The State Commission rejected Brinks’ limited-liability and consumer-status arguments, citing the hold instruction and the complainant’s livelihood-based business.
- Who
- Darshan Jhaveri of Aashi Exports filed the complaint against BVC Brinks Diamond & Jewellery Services LLP.
- What
- The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed Brinks’ appeal and upheld an order involving ₹66.53 lakh for a diamond consignment delivered despite hold instructions.
- When
- The consignment was sent in October 2018; the district order was issued in January 2023, and the State Commission ruling was reported on September 28, 2026.
- Where
- The complaint and state appeal proceedings were in Mumbai, while the shipment was delivered to Rainforest Trading Company in Hong Kong.
- Why
- Brinks delivered the diamonds despite instructions to wait for payment and release authorization.
Consumer Commission’s View
Brinks’ Arguments
Responsibility for delivery
Consumer Commission’s View
Delivering the consignment despite explicit hold instructions caused financial loss and constituted deficiency in service.
Brinks’ Arguments
Brinks argued that its airway-bill terms did not require it to hold shipments pending release instructions.
Limit on liability
Consumer Commission’s View
The commission rejected the liability limitation because the relevant terms were printed in very small, difficult-to-read text.
Brinks’ Arguments
Brinks relied on the airway bill’s declared carriage value of ₹1,000 to limit its liability.
Consumer status
Consumer Commission’s View
The commission held that Jhaveri qualified as a consumer because he operated the business to earn a livelihood for himself and his family.
Brinks’ Arguments
Brinks argued that Jhaveri was not a consumer because the transaction involved a commercial business.
- Complainant
- Darshan Jhaveri, sole proprietor of Aashi Exports
- Respondent
- BVC Brinks Diamond & Jewellery Services LLP
- Consignment value
- $91,146.60, equivalent to ₹66,53,658
- Shipment route
- From Mumbai to Rainforest Trading Company in Hong Kong
- District commission award
- ₹66.53 lakh for the consignment, ₹50,000 for mental torture, and ₹20,000 in litigation costs
- Key instruction
- Brinks was told to hold delivery until payment was received
- Legal finding
- The State Commission held that delivery despite the hold instruction amounted to deficiency in service