Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in proceedings before the Consumer Fora, the burden of proving absence of negligence in a claim against a common carrier is shifted to the carrier by Section 9 of the Carriers Act, 1865, and by the common law principle underlying that provision.
Analysis: The common carrier's liability was treated as akin to that of an insurer. Section 9 of the Carriers Act, 1865 was understood as embodying a common law principle relating to burden of proof, and that principle was held to apply equally to matters before the Consumer Fora under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Even on the assumption that Section 9 did not directly apply in consumer proceedings, the same legal presumption was held to operate, enabling the complainant to discharge the initial burden and shifting the onus to the carrier to prove absence of negligence.
Conclusion: The burden shifted to the carrier to prove absence of negligence, and the consumer complaint could proceed on that basis.
Final Conclusion: The special leave petitions were dismissed following the earlier decision on the same legal issue.
Ratio Decidendi: In claims against a common carrier before the Consumer Fora, the presumption of liability and the common law rule reflected in Section 9 of the Carriers Act, 1865 shift the burden to the carrier to disprove negligence.