Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points with corresponding references:

• Liability of Common Carrier as an Insurer: In a case involving damage to or loss of goods entrusted to a carrier, the liability of the carrier is that of an insurer. The plaintiff does not need to establish negligence on the part of the carrier. This absolute liability is subject only to exceptions such as an act of God or a special contract. (!) (!) (!)
• Applicability of Carriers Act to Consumer Proceedings: Section 9 of the Carriers Act, 1865 is applicable to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The argument that this section applies only to suits in civil courts and not to consumer redressal forums is untenable. (!) (!) (!)
• Definition of "Suit": The term "suit" in Section 9 of the Carriers Act is a generic term that encompasses all proceedings initiated by a party to realize a right vested in them under the law, including summary proceedings before the National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act. (!) (!) (!)
• Burden of Proof: Under the principles enshrined in Section 9 of the Carriers Act, the burden is not on the plaintiff to prove negligence in proceedings before consumer dispute redressal agencies when claiming against a common carrier. Instead, the burden shifts to the carrier to prove the absence of negligence or the existence of an exempting cause. (!) (!) (!)
• Factual Background: The respondent (Birla Yamaha Ltd.) booked generator sets with the appellant (Patel Roadways Ltd.), which were subsequently destroyed in a fire at the carrier's godown. The respondent filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission claiming the value of the goods, freight refund, and damages. (!)
• Commission's Order: The National Commission held that the carrier was deficient in service and liable for the loss. It relied on Section 9 of the Carriers Act, ruling that the loss of goods was prima facie evidence of negligence and relieved the complainant from proving negligence. (!)
• Carrier's Defense: The appellant argued that the loss was due to an accident beyond their control (fire) and that since Section 9 did not apply to consumer proceedings, the general law requiring the plaintiff to prove negligence should apply. (!) (!)
• Interpretation of Statutes: The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides a hierarchy of redressal forums with finality to their orders, treating them as decrees of a court. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act ensures its provisions are in addition to, not in derogation of, other laws like the Carriers Act. (!) (!)
• Precedent on Carrier Liability: Various High Courts have held that a common carrier in India is liable as an insurer for loss or damage to goods, except in cases of Act of God or inherent vice of the goods, without the need to prove negligence by the owner of the goods. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)