1. Passenger injured by bomb blast inside bus — Claim for compensation — Dispute over negligence and use of motor vehicle under Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 920
1998(7) Supreme 66
Supreme Court of India
(From Guwahati High Court)
K. Venkataswami & A.P. Misra, JJ.
Samir Chanda -Appellant
versus
Managing Director, Assam State Transport Corporation -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 10755 of 1995
Decided on 1-9-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.K. Tyagi and C.N. Sree Kumar, Advocates.
Important Points
Important Point
In the facts of the case there cannot be any doubt that the accident (Bomb explosion in Bus) arose out of the use of the motor vehicle justifying the claim of the appellant.
In the facts of the case there cannot be any doubt that the accident (Bomb explosion in Bus) arose out of the use of the motor vehicle justifying the claim of the appellant.
Subject
Tort Law - Negligence
Act Referred
Headnote
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Sections 110 and 92A-Bomb blast inside bus-Usual police escort was not there-Atmosphere during the period of explosion was very tense requiring extra care on part of conductor and driver of Bus which was lacking-Appellant injured, permanently disabled-Tribunal granted Rs. 1,20,000/- - High Court set aside as accident did not occur due to negligence - Whether correct? (No)-Appeal allowed.
Held : 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 give credit to while realising the award amount. (Paras 14, 15 & 16)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant alleged negligence due to lack of police escort during unrest — Respondent argued bomb blast was an external event beyond driver's control. (Para 5 , 8 )
3. Failure to provide police escort during known unrest constitutes negligence; explosion inside a bus is an accident arising out of the use of the vehicle. (Para 14 )
4. Use of a motor vehicle includes stationary or immobile vehicles; negligence may arise from failing to take necessary precautions during civil unrest. (Para 12 , 14 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Tribunal award restored with credit for amount already paid. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. Does the term use of a motor vehicle include instances where the vehicle is stationary or immobile?
Yes. The term use is construed in a wider sense to include periods when the vehicle is not moving, is stationary, parked, or immobile due to a breakdown, mechanical defect, or accident. (Para 12 )
7. Can a bomb blast inside a vehicle be considered an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle?
Yes. If the explosion occurs inside the vehicle, it is considered an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, justifying a claim for compensation. (Para 14 )
8. Can the failure to provide a police escort during civil unrest constitute negligence on the part of the vehicle owner or driver?
Yes. Where an abnormal situation or civil unrest necessitates extra care, such as the provision of a police escort, the failure to ensure such precautions can be found as negligence. (Para 6 , 14 )
Judgment
K. Venkataswami, J.-In spite of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal has been served, the Respondent has not entered appearance to contest this appeal.
2. The facts, as found by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati, are given below.
3. 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 2.2.1993.
3. 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.
4. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court has preferred this appeal.
5. 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.”
6. 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.”
7. 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.
8. 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 owner 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, 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.”
9. At the notice stage, this Court by order dated 18.9.1995 observed as follows:-
“The first question which arises for consideration is whether
