1. The petitioner is a common carrier governed by the Carriers Act, 1865. It contends that under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 the Consumer Fora can direct payment of compensation to the consumer for loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the ‘negligence’ of the opposite party and hence the burden of proof is on the complainant. It is contended that Section 9 of the Carriers Act which imposes burden on the defendant or the common carrier to prove absence of negligence cannot, therefore, be applied so as to shift the onus to the carrier to prove absence of negligence.

2. In view of the recent judgment of this Court dated 28th March, 2000 in Patel Roadways Limited v. Birla Yamaha Limited, we are of the view that the liability of the common carriers is that of the insurer. It was held there that Section 9 of the Carriers Act, 1865 applies to matters before the Consumer Fora under the Consumers Protection Act. It was also held that the principle underlying Section 9 of the said Act relating to burden of proof is a principle of common law and has been incorporated in Section 9 of the Carriers Act. Even assuming that Section 9 of the Carriers Act, 186