PETITIONER:
SAMIR CHANDA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MANAGING DIRECTOR, ASSAM STATE TPT. CORPN.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/09/1998
BENCH:
K. VENKATASWAMI, A.P. MISRA
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENTK. Venkataswami, J.
In spite of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal has been serve, the Respondent has not entered appearance to contest this appeal.
The facts, as found by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati, are given below.
The appellant was a passenger in a bus belonging to the Respondent-Corporation. On 17.10.1983, when the bus reached the last stoppage and when the passengers were alighting from the bus, a bomb exploded inside the bus as a result of which the appellant sustained serious injuries on his legs. The other passengers also suffered serious injuries due to the bomb explosion. on account of this, the appellant preferred M.A.C. Case No. 64(k)/84 claiming a compensation of Rs. 3,82,000/- . The Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the claim since the bomb had exploded inside the bus. The Tribunal held that the injuries sustained by the appellant were permanent in nature and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- by order dated 2.2.19993.
Aggrieved by that, the Respondent preferred an appeal to the Guwahati High Court in M.A. (F) NO. 72/93. The High Court did not disturb the findings of the Tribunal on facts. However, it was of the view that there was no negligence on the part of the owner or the driver of the vehicle and, therefore, the question of paying compensation did not arise. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the award of the Tribunal.
The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court has preferred this appeal.
The appellant in his claim petition has categorically stated as follows:-
" On the date of accident, the
claimant boarded the bus at Judge’s
field in order to go to his
residence at Kahilipara. At that
time an abnormal situation arose
out of Foreigners Deportation
movement. The A.S.T.C. authority
plied the City Buses with police
help, since before the accident and
after the accident. But on the date
of the accident, there was no
police help in the city bus. The
driver of the bus did not take due
care and caution in driving the
bus."
In support of that statement, an evidence was also given before the Tribunal. In the light of the above averment and evidence, the Tribunal found as follows:
" It is admitted that the present
accident took place when a bomb
exploded inside it when the bus
stopped at last stoppage of the
route and it was in stationary
condition.
...................................
.........................
Here in the case in hand, at the
relevant time Assam Agitation was
in full swing which necessitated
either the conductor of the bus or
its driver to take extra care which
was found lacking here and as such
the accident, I hold, took arising
out of the use of motor vehicle and
both cases are held maintainable."
After fixing the liability on the Respondent, the Tribunal assessed the compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- and awarded the said sum with 12% interest.
The High Court was of the view that there was no question of negligence on the part of the owner or driver of the vehicle. The High Court observed thus:-
" When there is a bomb blast and
the accident is caused due to bomb
blast, it is not a case of any
negligence on the part of the
owners of the driver, but because
of some other events over which the
owner or the driver have no
control. Such an accident is not
the result of negligence or failure
to do some duty. It cannot be said
in such a case that there is
negligence on the part of the owner
or the driver. If there is no
negligence on the part of the owner
or the driver. If there is no
negligence on the part of the owner
or the driver, the question of
paying compensation by the owner or
by the driver does not arise.
Accordingly, we allow these appeals
and set aside the judgment and
awards dated 2.2.1993 passed by the
Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Kamrup at Guwahati in MAC
Case No. 64(k) of 1984 and MAC Case
No. 65(k) of 1984.
At the notice stage, this Court by order dated 18.9.1995 observe as follows :-
" The first question which arises
for consideration is whether the
bomb blast which caused injuries to
the petitioner took place outside
the motor vehicle and whether the
petitioner sustained injuries as a
result thereof. The High Court
appears to have taken the view that
it was so. The jurisdiction of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
depends on the correctness of this
finding. the learned counsel for
the petitioner wants to produce the
entire evidence adduced before the
Tribunal to enable proper
examination of this finding of the
High Court. This be done within
eight weeks. List thereafter."
After perusing the documents produced pursuant to the above order dated 18.9.1995, this Court granted leave on 20.11.1995.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited our attention to a decision of this Court in shivaji Dayanu Patil and Another vs. Vatschala Uttam More (Smt) - [ (191) 3 SCC 530] to support and to restore the Award of the Tribunal which has been set aside by the High Court. In said case, there was a collision between a petrol tanker and a truck on a National Highway at about 3.00 A.M. , as a result of which the tanker went off the road and fell on its left side at a distance of about 20 feet from the Highway. As a result of the collision, the petrol contained in the tanker leaked out and collected nearby. About four hours later, an explosion took place in the tanker causing burn injuries to those assembled near it and one such person’s legal representative filed claim petition before the Tribunal under section 92-A as well as under section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
This Court while repelling various arguments put forward, repudiating the claim, held as follows : -
"26. These decisions indicate that
the word "use" in the context of
motor vehicles, has been construed
in a wider sense to include the
period when the vehicle is not
moving and is stationary, being
either parked on the road and when
it is not in a position to move due
to some breakdown or mechanical
defect. relying on the above
mentioned decisions, the appellant
bench of the High Court has held
that the expression "use of a motor
vehicle" in Section 92-A covers
accidents which occur both when the
vehicle is in motion and when it is
stationary. With reference to the
facts of the present case, the
learned Judges have observed that
the tanker in question while
proceeding along National Highway 4
(i.e. while in use) after colliding
with a motor lorry was lying on the
side and that it cannot be claimed
that after the collision the use of
the tanker had ceased only because
it was disabled. We are in
agreement with the said approach of
the High Court. In our opinion, the
word "use" has a wider connotation
to cover the period when the
vehicle is not moving and is
stationary and the use of a vehicle
does not cease on account of the
vehicle having been rendered
immobile on account of a breakdown
or mechanical defect or accident.
In the circumstance, it cannot be
said that the petrol tanker was not
in the use at the time when it was
lying on its side after the
collision with the truck."
This view has been referred to and applied in a recent decision of this Court in Union of India vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others - [ (1997) 8 SCC 683].
After going through the judgment of the High Court, we are of the view that the High Court was not right on facts that there was no negligence on the part of the owner or the driver of the bus especially when the appellant has specifically pleaded about the negligence which was accepted by the Tribunal in the light of the pleadings and of the evidence produced before it. The explosion took place inside the bus is an admitted fact and the usual police escort was not there. The High Court, except observing that there was no negligence, has not upset the finding of the Tribunal that the atmosphere during the period of accident was so polluted requiring care on the part of the conductor and driver of the bus. There cannot be any doubt that the accident arose out of the use of the motor vehicle justifying the claim of the appellant. We are satisfied with the assessment of the Tribunal in quantifying the compensation in a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 12%.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment under appeal is set aside and the Award of the Tribunal is restored. There will be no order as to costs.
When the matter was before the High Court, it appears that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was given to the appellant and the High Court while disposing of the appeal directed that the amount already paid need not be refunded by the appellant herein. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- must be given credit to while realising the award amount.