2000 (3) TMI 1092 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 9 of the Carriers Act, 1865 to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Liability of common carriers for loss or damage to goods.
3. The burden of proof in cases of negligence.
4. The meaning and scope of the term "suit" in Section 9 of the Carriers Act.
5. Mitigating factors in the quantification of damages.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Section 9 of the Carriers Act, 1865 to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
The core question was whether Section 9 of the Carriers Act, 1865 is applicable to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Supreme Court held that the term "suit" in Section 9 should be understood in its generic sense, encompassing all proceedings initiated by a party for the realization of a right vested in them under law. Therefore, Section 9 applies to proceedings before consumer disputes redressal agencies, including the National Commission.

2. Liability of Common Carriers for Loss or Damage to Goods:
The Court reiterated that the liability of a common carrier in India is that of an insurer. The carrier is responsible for the safety of the goods entrusted to them in all events except for acts of God or the Queen's enemies. This liability is not dependent on proving negligence, as stated in Section 9 of the Carriers Act.

3. The Burden of Proof in Cases of Negligence:
The Court emphasized that under Section 9 of the Carriers Act, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove negligence or a criminal act by the carrier. The burden of proof lies on the carrier to show that the loss or damage was not due to their negligence.

4. The Meaning and Scope of the Term "Suit" in Section 9 of the Carriers Act:
The term "suit" in Section 9 of the Carriers Act is a generic term that includes all proceedings initiated by a party for the realization of a right vested in them under law. The Court rejected the contention that the term "suit" applies only to cases filed in civil courts and not to proceedings before the National Commission.

5. Mitigating Factors in the Quantification of Damages:
The appellant contended that they were led to believe that the goods were insured by the respondent, and this should be considered a mitigating factor in quantifying damages. The Court found no material evidence to support this claim and rejected the contention. The National Commission's decision to confine the damages to the value of the consignment destroyed or not delivered was upheld.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the National Commission's order that the appellant was liable to pay Rs. 51,00,799/- to the respondent for the loss of goods and refund of freight charges. The Court upheld that the Consumer Protection Act allows consumer disputes redressal agencies to adjudicate claims against common carriers under the Carriers Act, and the burden of proof for negligence lies on the carrier.