The Apex Court, while hearing an appeal, observed that a consumer complaint cannot be maintainable against a common carrier unless a prior notice is served under Section 6 of the Carriers Act, 1865.
In the instant case, the NCDRC upheld the order passed by Himachal Pradesh Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission which upheld consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Associated Road Carriers.
Aggrieved by the order passed by SCDRC, the carrier preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court wherein its counsel relied upon the provision under Section 10 of the Carriers Act and contended that since a prior notice had not been served upon it, the complaint before the respective consumer fora couldn’t be maintainable.
The division bench observed that the requirement of prior notice in order to initiate the proceedings is mandatory and not straightaway the proceedings. The bench also referred to its verdict in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. v Associated Roadways, wherein it was held that merely due to the summary nature of COPRA, it does not warrant the abrogation of requirement of notice u/Section 10 of the Carriers Act.
The bench, however, decided not to interfere with the impugned order as the complaint pertained to a consignment which had been booked in the year 1997.
With respect to the Carriers Act, it a law which has been enacted to extend the rights and hold liability of the Common Carriers. Common Carrier could be understood as a person, other than the government, which engages in the business of transporting property under a multi nodal transport document.
Leave a Reply