Back
S.SAGHIR AHMAD, D.P.MOHAPATRA
PATEL ROADWAYS LTD. – Appellant
Versus
BIRLA YAMAHA LTD. – Respondent
What is the applicability of Section 9 of the Carriers Act to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act? What is the liability standard for a common carrier under the Carriers Act as discussed in the judgment? What is the interpretation of the term "suit" in Section 9 of the Carriers Act in the context of proceedings before the National Commission?
Key Points: - The carriers act Section 9 applies to suits against common carriers, not limited to Civil Courts; the National Commission proceeding can be treated as a "suit" for purposes of Section 9 (!) (!) - A common carrier’s liability is insurer-like, absolute liability subject to act of God or special contract; burden of proof on absence of negligence lies on the carrier (!) (!) (!) - Consumer Protection Act forums (District Forums, State Commissions, National Commission) have jurisdiction to entertain complaints involving loss/damage to goods in transportation and their orders have finality and enforceability similar to Court decrees (!) (!) (!) (!)
D.P. Mohapatra, J.—The core question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether Section 9 of the Carriers Act, 1865 (Act 3 of 1865) is applicable to a proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986). The answer to this question depends on the interpretation of Section 9 of the Carriers Act and its inter-action with the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. The factual matrix of the case relevant for determination of the issue may be stated thus. The respondent M/s. Birla Yamaha Limited booked 237 consignments containing 267 generator sets at Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh, with the appellant M/s. Patel Roadways Limited for transportation. The freight charges were duly paid by the consignor to the carrier and necessary lorry receipt was issued by the latter in favour of the former. The goods booked by the respondent were destroyed in a fire which took place in the godown of the appellant shortly after booking of the consignments. The respondent made a claim for the value of the goods, for refund of freight charged and compensaton for the loss. Some correspondence between the parties followed. Since no satisfactory solutio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
