Supreme Court of India
M/S. ECONOMIC TRANSPORT ORGANISATION ETC. versus DHARWAD DISTT. KHADI GRAMUDYOG SANGH ETC.
- Decided
- 31 March 2000
- Judges listed
- M. JAGANNADHA RAO, M.B. SHAH
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [2000] 2 S.C.R. 888 · 2000 INSC 181
- Also cited as
- (2000) 5 SCC 78
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
The petitioner is a common earner govered 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
p. 888, margin G
889 Section 9 of the Caniers Act which 'imposes burden on the defendant or the common earner to prove absence of negligence cannot therefore be applied so as to shift the onus to the canier to prove absence of negligence.
p. 889
In view of the recent Judgment of this Court dated 28th March,, 2000 in Palel Roadways Limited v. Birla Yamaha Limited, in C.A. No. 9071 of 1996, 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 Caniers 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 Caniers Act, 1865 does not apply to the cases before the Consumer fora under Consumers Protection Act, the principle of common law above mentioned gets attracted to all these cases coming up before the Consumer fora. Section l4(1)(d) of the Consumers Protection Act had to be understood in that light and the burden of proof gets shifted to the caniers by the application of the legal presumption under the common law. Section 14(1)(d) has to be understood in that manner. The complainant can discharge the initial onus, even if it is laid on him under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumers Protection Act, by relying on Section 9 of the Caniers Act. It will therefore be for the canier to prove absence of negligence. It has been held in like circumstances that a defendant in a suit on the basis of a negotiable instmment can discharge the onus lying on him under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by relying on another presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act under which if a plaintiff does not produce the accounts in his personal custody an adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiff. Kundanlal v. Custodian, Evacuee Properly, AIR (1961) SC 1316.
p. 889, margin A
With the above observation and following the above said Judgment in the case of Patel Roadways, we dismiss the special leave petitions accordingly. T.N.A. Petitions dismissed.
p. 889, margin F