Section 10 of the Carriers Act is reproduced hereunder :-
“10. Notice of loss or injury to
be given within six months — No
suit shall be instituted against a
common carrier for the loss of, or
injury to goods (including
container, pallets or similar
article of transport used to
consolidate goods) entrusted to
him for carriage, unless notice in
writing of the loss or injury has
been given to him before the
institution of the suit and within
six months of the time when the
loss or injury first came to the
knowledge of the plaintiff.”
Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon a
Judgment of this Court in Arvind Mills Ltd. Vs.
Associated Roadways, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 545,
wherein this Court has held as under :-
“7. Since the word 'suit' has been
used both in Section 9 and Section
10 of the Carriers Act, there is no
reason why we should not construe
the said word as far as Section 10
is concerned in the same manner as
it was done in Patel Roadways
Limited (supra) qua Section 9. The
distinction that has been sought to
be drawn between Section 9 and
Section 10, namely, that the former
creates a substantive right whereas
the latter only provides for
procedure is unacceptable. Section
9 deals with the rule of evidence
to be followed in dealing with
cases under the Carriers Act and
rules of evidence are the rules of
procedure. Besides, the
construction of the word 'suit' in
Patel Roadways Limited (supra) did
not turn on whether Section 9 was
either procedural or substantive.
8. The fact that the remedies under
the Consumer Protection Act are in
addition to and not in derogation
of any other law does not mean that
the rights under the Carriers Act
can be exercised, except in
accordance with the manner provided
under the Act. Section 9 and 10
form an integral scheme by which a
common carrier is fastened with
liability irrespective of proof of
negligence. Merely because the
procedure under the Consumer
Protection Act is summary in nature
does not in any way warrant the
abrogation of the requirement to
serve notice under Section 10 of
the Carriers Act before fastening
any liability under that Act on the
carriers.”
The NCDRC has held that since the complaint was
filed before the State Consumer Commission within a
period of six months, it will amount to a notice upon
the common carrier, therefore, the requirement of
serving prior notice under Section 10 of the Carriers
Act stands satisfied.
We find that the proceedings initiated before the
Consumer Fora without serving a notice under Section
10 of the Carriers Act was not maintainable. The
requirement of Section 10 of the Carriers Act is
serving of prior notice in writing of the loss or
injury. Notice is required to be served prior to
initiation of proceedings and not the proceedings
itself.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4412-4413 OF 2010
M/S. ASSOCIATED ROAD CARRIERS LTD. Vs M/S. KAMLENDER KASHYAP
Dated: AUGUST 17, 2021.
The challenge in the present appeals is to an
order passed by the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (in short, “NCDRC”) dated
10.01.2008, whereby an order of the Himachal Pradesh
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing the
appellant to pay a sum of Rs.4,29,445/- along with
interest at the rate of 8% and costs of Rs.5000/- was
not interfered with.
The sole argument raised by the learned counsel
for the appellant is that in terms of Section 10 of
Carriers Act, 1865, no prior notice was served upon
the common carrier, therefore, the complaint before
the Consumer Fora was not maintainable. Section 10
of the Carriers Act is reproduced hereunder :-
“10. Notice of loss or injury to
be given within six months — No
suit shall be instituted against a
common carrier for the loss of, or
injury to goods (including
container, pallets or similar
article of transport used to
consolidate goods) entrusted to
him for carriage, unless notice in
writing of the loss or injury has
been given to him before the
institution of the suit and within
six months of the time when the
loss or injury first came to the
knowledge of the plaintiff.”
Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon a
Judgment of this Court in Arvind Mills Ltd. Vs.
Associated Roadways, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 545,
wherein this Court has held as under :-
“7. Since the word 'suit' has been
used both in Section 9 and Section
10 of the Carriers Act, there is no
reason why we should not construe
the said word as far as Section 10
is concerned in the same manner as
it was done in Patel Roadways
Limited (supra) qua Section 9. The
distinction that has been sought to
be drawn between Section 9 and
Section 10, namely, that the former
creates a substantive right whereas
the latter only provides for
procedure is unacceptable. Section
9 deals with the rule of evidence
to be followed in dealing with
cases under the Carriers Act and
rules of evidence are the rules of
procedure. Besides, the
construction of the word 'suit' in
Patel Roadways Limited (supra) did
not turn on whether Section 9 was
either procedural or substantive.
8. The fact that the remedies under
the Consumer Protection Act are in
addition to and not in derogation
of any other law does not mean that
the rights under the Carriers Act
can be exercised, except in
accordance with the manner provided
under the Act. Section 9 and 10
form an integral scheme by which a
common carrier is fastened with
liability irrespective of proof of
negligence. Merely because the
procedure under the Consumer
Protection Act is summary in nature
does not in any way warrant the
abrogation of the requirement to
serve notice under Section 10 of
the Carriers Act before fastening
any liability under that Act on the
carriers.”
The NCDRC has held that since the complaint was
filed before the State Consumer Commission within a
period of six months, it will amount to a notice upon
the common carrier, therefore, the requirement of
serving prior notice under Section 10 of the Carriers
Act stands satisfied.
We find that the proceedings initiated before the
Consumer Fora without serving a notice under Section
10 of the Carriers Act was not maintainable. The
requirement of Section 10 of the Carriers Act is
serving of prior notice in writing of the loss or
injury. Notice is required to be served prior to
initiation of proceedings and not the proceedings
itself.
However, keeping in view the fact that the
consignment was booked in the year 1997, it is too
late in the day to relegate the parties to meet out
the requirement of notice under Section 10 of the
Carriers Act. The parties have contested the
proceedings on merits and the State Commission as
well as the NCDRC have returned a finding of fact
that the appellant was deficient in providing
service.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, we do not wish to interfere with the impugned
order. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed with
no order as to costs.
.......................J.
[ HEMANT GUPTA ]
.......................J.
[ A. S. BOPANNA ]
New Delhi;
AUGUST 17, 2021.
No comments:
Post a Comment