http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

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:                       J U D G M E N T K. 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

    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.