1. These appeals have arisen out of two sets of claim petitions; one pertains to an accident cause whereof was a bomb blast and other deals with an incident where bullets of the terrorists sniffled life out of the passengers. Legal heirs have claimed compensation. In both sets of cases legal heirs have been successful. It is the Insurance Company which has challenged the decision so given.

2. So far as the appeals pertaining to bomb blast are concerned, these are enumerated in annexure ‘A’ appealed to this judgement. The appeals pertaining to the claimants who are heirs of those who died on account of terrorists bullets find serialized inannexue ‘B’

3. Bomb blast cases deals with incidents which took place on 07.10.1992 and 28.11.1994. The first incident as noticed above took place on 07.10.1992. At about 9.30 a.m. a bus started from Keso Manahasan to Jammu. When bus reached Diagiana Asharam, a bomb exploded in it. A number of persons died and some were grievously injured. The said accident it was alleged took place because of the carelessness and negligence on the part of the driver and conductor of the vehicle because they did not take proper care to check the bus during the days of insurgency. It was said that they were supposed to take proper care and check the passengers before they were allowed to board the bus. This was not done. It was thus stated that it was because of their negligence and gruesome tragedy took place.

4. In the second bomb blast case, the injured were traveling in Bus bearing registration No. JK02B 3875. it was the 28th day of November 1994. The bus was going from Jammu to Katra. When the bus reached Ramnagar Morh near Panj Peer a bomb exploded. This caused fatal injuries and also personal injuries to the passengers. Claim petitions were lodged. A preliminary objection was taken that the claim petitions are not maintainable. The matter came up to this court. This court was of the opinion that the petitions required to be tried on materials. Therefore, trial was held. The Insurance Company has been held liable. Appeals have now been preferred by the Insurance Company.

5. So far as bomb blast cases are concerned these can be categorized in two categories; one category is where injuries proved to be fatal and the other where injured survived but suffered injuries.

6. The facts in cases arising out of death on account of terrorist activity be noticed.

7. The accident took place on 14.08.1993. One of the passengers survived to tell the events. He is Jai Krishan S/o Dharam Chand. He appeared in the witness box on 14.08.1993. He stated that at about 5.30 p.m. passengers were traveling in a bus bearing registration No. JKU/2003 when the bus was about 200 feet away from Sarthal Link Road, the passengers noticed some militants standing at the centre of the road. They have covered their faces. They were carrying fire arms. The passengers told the driver to speed up the bus and not to stop. The driver, however, stopped the bus when he reached near the militants. The two militants came inside and told the driver to take the bus on the link road. The bus was taken 5 to 7 Kms inside. It was got stopped. The passengers were told to get out of the bus. Then the passengers belonging to two different communities were segregated. Passengers belonging to one community were told to run away. This witness also took advantage of that and ran alongwith them. When he looked back, he found that 16 passengers belonging to the other community were shot at and they fell on the ground, Even the conductor was killed. It is submitted that it is on account of negligence of the driver that the accident occurred. Had he not stopped the bus then the said event could have been avoided.

8. The question which is required to be gone into is as to what is the scope of the term "arising out of the use of the vehicle’. Before processing to analyse the scope of this phrase, it would be apt to mention that liability is also being created under the wo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document