Judgment ( 1. ) THIS writ petition is directed against the orders passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jabalpur, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, respectively contained in (P-4), (P-5) and (P-1 ). ( 2. ) RESPONDENT Dr. R. S. Pande, filed an application before the District Consumer Forum, Jabalpur, claiming a sum of Rs. 29,000/ -. Respondent/complainant sent 125 gift vouchers through the petitioner Madhur Courier Services from Jabalpur to Nagpur which were not delivered to consignee. District Forum found the case of deficiency in service and awarded a sum of Rs. 19,000/- on account of value of cooking range Rs. 15,000/-, for grinder mixer Rs. 4,000/- and cost of Rs. 500/- along with the interest at the rate of 12% with effect from 23-9-97. An appeal was preferred before M. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bearing No. 786/97, which was dismissed on 18-5-98. Thereafter Revision Petition No. 675/98 was preferred before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. It was dismissed as per order (P-1) passed on 10-4-2002. The petitioner assails the order on the ground that the receipt which was issued to the respondent/complainant, there was condition in which liability of Courier Services was limited to Rs. 100/ -. Petitioner submits that in view of the contract between the parties award of damages of Rs. 19,000/- is bad in law and impermissible. ( 3. ) IT has been found as a fact that receipt was not signed by the respondent/complainant and the attention of the complainant was not drawn under the condition limiting the liability of the Courier. It has been held that receipt does not bear the signature of the consignor. The conditions mentioned in the receipt are not binding upon him. It is a finding of fact recorded is not in dispute that the receipt issued by petitioner (P-3) does not bear the signature of consignor. Thus, it has been concluded that the liability of the Courier Services will not be limited tors. 100/ ( 4 ) ). The question of 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. 100/ ( 4 ) ). The question of 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 receipt is issued, then the question arises whether the terms of the contract were adequately brought to his notice. In such a situation it is for the person who wishes to utilize printed terms has to establish the circumstances and that terms were explained and understood. Each case is depend upon its own facts. In Bharati Knitting Company v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. , II (1996) CPJ 25 (SC), the Apex Court has held as under :- "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 elaborately been considered and decided. The details thereof are not necessary for us to pursue. It is seen that when a person signs a document which contains certain contractual terms, as rightly pointed out by Mr. R. F. Nariman, learned Senior Counsel, that normally parties are bound by such contract; it is for the party to establish exception in a suit. When a party to the contract disputes the binding nature of the signed document, it is for him to prove the terms in the contract on circumstances in which he came to sign the documents need to be established. The question we need to consider is : whether the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission could go behind the terms of the contract ? It is true, as contended by Mr. M. N. Krishnamani, that in an appropriate case, the Tribunal without trenching upon acute disputed question of facts may decide the validity of the terms of the contract based upon the fact situation and may grant remedy. It is true, as contended by Mr. M. N. Krishnamani, that in an appropriate case, the Tribunal without trenching upon acute disputed question of facts may decide the validity of the terms of the contract based upon the fact situation and may grant remedy. But each case depends upon its own facts. In an appropriate case where there is an acute dispute of facts necessarily the Tribunal has to refer the parties to Original Civil Court established under the CPC or appropriate State Law to have the claims decided between the parties. But when there is a specific term in the contract, the parties are bound by the terms in the contract. " ( 5. ) THE findings of fact which have been recorded indicate that the printed condition was not explained. This finding is not amenable to interference in the writ jurisdiction and it is based on discussion of evidence in a proper manner. The matter has travelled up to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. In view of the fact that receipt was not signed by the complainant and attention was not drawn to the condition limiting the liability of the Courier, the loss caused by the deficiency of service of the Courier has been rightly awarded by the District Consumer Forum and orders have been affirmed rightly by State and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Thus, no interference is called for in the writ petition. It is dismissed. Costs on parties.