PATEL ROADWAYS LTD. versus BIRLA YAMAHA LTD.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 665 · Decided: 28-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

PATEL ROADWAYS LTD. 
A 
v. 
BIRLA YAMAHA LTD. 
MARCH 28, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
B 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: 
Sections 21 and 22: Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies-Jurisdic-
tion of-Complaint against common carrier against loss or damage to goodf 
C 
entrusted for transpo11ation-Held, maintainable. 
Sections 2( d), ( g), ( o), 21, 22 and 25-Deficiency in sen1ice-Liability of 
common carrier-Goods entrusted for transpo11ation-Consignment destroyed 
by fire in godown of carrier-Held, carrier liable for the loss-Liability is that 
of insurer but subject to act of God and accidental fire is not an act of God-
Further, negligence on the part of the carrier need not be established by 
complainant-Carriers Act, section 9. 
D 
Carriers Act, 1865-Section 9-Applicability of-Proceedings before 
consumer dispute redressal agencies-Held, word 'Suit' in Carriers Act in-
E 
eludes proceedings before consumerforum. 
Words and Phrases : 
Suit-Act of God-Meaning o.f 
Respondent booked consignments with appellant for transporta-
tion. Goods booked were destroyed in a fire which took place in appel-
lant's godown. Respondent filed a complaint before National Consumer 
Forum. Appellant was held deficient in performance of service as com-
mon carrier. Hence, this appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that Section 9 of the Carriers Act 
does not apply to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act but 
only to suits filed in civil court; and as the respondent failed to discharge 
the burden to prove negligence, the complaint should be dismissed. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
665 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
666 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
HELD : 1.1. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies provided in 
the Consumer Protection Act are forums vested with powers of adjudica-
tion of all types of consumer disputes and also complaints for loss or 
damage to goods entrusted to a carrier for transportation. Finality is 
attached to the orders of the redressal agencies and provision is made for 
execution and implementation of the orders passed by them treating such 
orders as decree of the coqrt. Further, the scheme of the statute is to 
provide hierarchy of redressal forums for attending to the grievances of 
consumers regarding deficiency in service. [673-H; 674-A] 
2.1. The liability of a common carrier under the Carriers Act is that 
of an insurer. In a case of claim of damage for loss to or deterioration of 
goods entrusted to a carrier is not necessary for the plaintiff to establish 
negligence. Even though the general principle in cases of tortious liability is 
that the party who alleges negligence against the other must prove the same 
but this principle has no application to a case covered under the Carriers 
Act. This is also the position notwithstanding a special contract between the 
parties. [ 680-G] 
11 
2.2. The absolute liability of the carrier is subject to exception of 
loss or damage caused .due to act of God. An act of God will be an 
extraordinary occurrence due to natural causes, which is not the result of 
E 
any human intervention a.nd which could not be avoided by any amount 
of foresight and care but an accidental fire though it might not have 
resulted from any act of or omission of the common carrier, cannot be 
said to be an act of God. [676-H] 
F 
G 
H 
Ross v. Hill, 2 CB 890; Akhil Chandra Saha & Ors. v. Indian General 
Navigation and Railway Co. Vol.XX!, (1915) Cal. LJ 565; Dekhari Tea Co. • 
Ltd. v. Assam Bengal Railway Co. Ltd., AIR (1920) Cal. 758; MIS. Mooljee 
Sicka & Co. v. Sardar Naharsingh, AIR (1959) MP·351; l.G.N.& Rly. Co. Ltd. 
v. Eastern Assam Co. Ltd., AIR (1921) Cal. 315; P.K. Kalasami Nadar v. K. 
Ponnuswami Mudaliar & Ors., AIR (1962) Mad. 44; Rivers Steam Navigatioh 
Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, AIR (1962) Assam 110; D. V. Patel v. G. Wagle, AIR 
(1963) Born. 208; Vidya Ratan v. Kota Transport Co. Ltd., AIR (1965) Raj. 
200; Muralidhar Mohanlal & Ors. v. Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., AIR 
(1967) Assam 79; The AssociaJed Traders & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Cloth 
& General Mills Ltd. & Ors., ILR (1974) 1 Delhi 790; Mis. Road Transport 
Corporation & Ors. v. Kirloskar Bros. Ltd., AIR (1981) Born. 299; Kerala 
.. 
PATEL ROADWAYS LTD. v. BIRLA YAMAHA LTD. (D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.] 
667 
Transport Co. v. Kunnath Textiles, (1983) KLT 480; R.R.N. Ramalinga v. 
A 
Narayana, AIR (1971) Kerala 197 and Banwari Lal Podar v. Road Transport 
Corporatio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.