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.

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