At the Annual Convention of All India Motor Transport Congress recently, Rajnath Singh, Union minister of surface transport, agreed with the transporters' demand that a relook at the Act was necessary. So strong is the lobbying against such a move that the minister was even misquoted as saying that the entire Act would be repealed. However, official sources confirmed that the move was only to amend the Act and not doing away with it.

Speaking to The Financial Express, JM Saksena, secretary general, AIMTC, said that at no stage they had asked for scrapping of the Act since it at least provides with some kind of protection to the transporters. However, AIMTC had maintained that certain clauses of the Act, which was framed way back in 1865 and since then has never been amended, need to be changed.

The counter lobby had maintained that transporters should not be allowed to take the industry for a ride and be made liable for the quality of services they provide. The Supreme Court has also in a number of judgments maintained that both the Consumer Protection Act and the Carriers Act will be applicable in such cases. This has taken the legal battle to consumer courts instead of civil courts.

The transporter's body has argued that the Railways and waterways had been taken out of the Act's purview in the past and it was only road transport that continued to be governed by it.

In the case of the Railways, no compensation is granted to the owners of a consignment in case it is booked under `said to contain' category. This means that the Railways are not liable for the damages, if the railway booking clerk had booked the goods without checking it.

If loss or damage has occurred in case of goods with a `clear railway receipt', the Railways pay a compensation which is at present capped at Rs 5 lakh. In force majeure conditions, the Railways do not pay any compensation.

The transporters argue that in cases like the Orissa cyclone, they are facing a number of litigations which claim damages. "We as carriers also lost property and persons during the calamity. Why should we be made to pay compensation for reasons which are beyond our control," said Saksena.He said that they have asked the Government to cap the compensation in case the value and nature of goods is known.

As per the present Act, it is not necessary for the person claiming damages to prove that such damage or loss was caused by the negligence or criminal acts of the transporter, his servants or agents. The liability of a carrier under the Act is that of an insurer.

The draft amendment, which is yet to be cleared by the ministry, has said that under Chapter IV, section 19(1), no common carrier shall be liable for the loss or damage to property delivered to him to be carried exceeding Rs 7.5 lakh.

The new section 20(1) says that provided further that the carrier shall not be liable for loss or damage arising out of delay in delivery unless the consignor had made a declaration of interest in timely delivery which has been accepted by the carrier.

Official sources claim that the amendment has been necessitated because the transport sector has undergone a sea change since the Act was framed. The amendment should, therefore, aim at balancing the consumer and the transporter interests.