CRP No. 369 of 2000, CRP No. 370 of 2000, CRP No. 371 of 2000, CRP No. 372 of 2000, CRP No. 373 of 2000 and CRP No. 362 of 2000, all these raise the same question of law and facts and as such they are taken up for hearing together.

2. I have heard Shri SS Sharma, learned Advocate for the petitioner in all the revision petitions, Shri KH Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sheikh Muktar as Amicus Curiae in all the civil revision petitions, Shri MK Choudhury, learned Advocate for the opposite parties in CRP No. 373 of 2000, Shri AS Dasgupta, learned Advocate for the opposite party in CRP No. 373 of 2000 and Shri SP Deka, learned counsel for the opposite party in CRP No. 370 of 2000. Certain claim cases were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Guwahati under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of some persons. These persons admittedly died due to the injuries received in an accident which occurred on 1.11.98 at Khanapara, Guwahati.

2A. The case which was made out in the claim cases were that certain vehicles carried LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) and they were kept in an unattended condition and there were leakage of LPG from one of the Tankers and that suddenly at about 10.30 PM in the night, a blast occurred in the Tanker as a result of which there was a vast fire and as a result of which a number of persons were killed and others also suffered burnt injuries. In the process of the blast one of the Tankers was blown of to a distance of about 50 feet near the Assam Veterinary College Hospital and in that process these persons were killed and accordingly a number of claim cases were filed and different orders were passed on different dates. All these Tankers belonged to different persons namely, M/s Assam Petroleum Transport Company, Khanapara and they were the carriers of Liquefied Petroleum Gas. They used to carry from Noonmati and these Tankers carried the Gas for delivery to the Bottling Plants at Bongaigaon and Khanapara is almost in the middle of the destination. No doubt at the time when the accident occurred these Tankers were in stationery states after loading the Liquefied Petroleum Gas they were on their way to Bongaigaon. On these claims, the insurance company, the petitioner herein, they filed a written statement and resisted the claims for No Fault Liability. It may be stated herein that all these Tankers had valid insurance with the petitioners company and on the date of the accident there was a valid policy. A defence was taken up in all the claim cases and that defence, inter alia reads as follows :

"That there is no cause of action against the answering opposite party and the claimant has no right to relief against them and as such the claim petition is liable to be dismissed against the answering opposite party. The policy obtained in the case is an Act policy which does not cover any other risk including public liability which arose in the instant case."

On this ground it is sought to be urged that as the deceased persons were not the passengers of the vehicle, they are not entitled to any compensation and that it will not cover the case of this accident. The learned Tribunal passed an order that the benefit of No Fault Liability shall be available and accordingly directed to make payment of No Fault Liability of Rupees fifty thousand in the case of death and no order was passed for payment in the case of injury. Cases in case of No Fault Liability are as follows : MAC No 450 of 1999, MAC No 12 of 1999, MAC No. 827 of 1999, MAC No. 693 of 1999, MAC No. 339 of 1999, and MAC No. 400 of 2000 and this common order dated 12.7.2000 was passed, against that order as mentioned above, these revisions have been filed.

3. No doubt under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is available to this Court to interfere with an appropriate order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as decided by the Full Bench of this Court holding that the Motor A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document