SAMIR CHANDAversusMANAGING DIRECTOR, ASSAM STATE TPT. CORPN.

                   SAMIR CHANDA                                                  A
                          v.
      MANAGING DIRECTOR, ASSAM STATE TPT. CORPN.

                           SEPTEMBER 1, 1998

            IK. VENKATASWAMY AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.j                                B

      Motor Vehicles Act 1939 :

      Sections 92-A, I !(}-Claim for compensation--Explosio11 inside the bus
while appellant alighting from the bm-Assam agitation in full swi11g-T1ial       C
court awarding compensation based on plea of negligence of Respon-
de11t-Finding of fact not upset by High Cowt-Award of compensation
upheld-Fi11ding of High Cowt as regards lack of negligence reversed.

        Claim for compenrntion-Bus parked in the last stop---Bomb blast
inside the vehic/e-ltzcident while appellant alighting-Held, accident arose      D
while motor vehicle was in use-Award of compensation by tJial cowt
justified.

      The Appellant claimed compensation from the Respondent for the
reason that when he was travelling in a bus belonging to the Respondent, a
bomb exploded inside the bus as a result of which he sustained serious           E
injuries. The other passengers also suffered serious injuries in the bomb
explosion. The compensation claim was allowed by the Trib1.mal which held
that the injuries sustained by the Appellant were permanent in nature and
allowed a compensation of Rs. 1,20,000. The Tribunal also relied on the
evidence and found that the accident arose out of the negligence of the
driver and the conductor of the motor vehicle. On appeal the High Court          F
though upheld the findings of facts, held that there was no negligence on
the part of the owner or the driver of the vehicle and set aside the award of
the Tribunal.

       On appeal the Appellant relying on the decision in Shivaji Dayamt
                                                                                 G
Patil & Anr. v. Vatschala Uttam More (Smt.), [1991) 3 SCC 530 and U•1ion
of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ot:Y., (1997) 8 SCC 683 con-
tended that the vehicle was in use at the time of the explosion and took place
when the passengers were alighting from the bus.

      Allowing the appeal, the Court                                             H
                                     219
    220                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A         HELD : 1. The High Court was not right on fact 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 High Court except observing that there was no
B   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. [224-C]

        2. There cannot be any doubt that the accidentarose out of the use
  of the motor vehicle justifying the claim of the Appellant. The assessment
C of the Tribunal in quantifying the compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,20,000
  with interest @ 12% is justified. [224-E]

          Shivaji Dayanu Patil & Anr. v. Vatschala Uttam More (Smt.), [1991]
    3 SCC 530 and Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & On.,
    [1997] 8 sec 683, referred to.
D
          (The Court observed that the sum of Rs. 25,000 given to the Appel-
    lant before the High Court must be given credit to while realising the
    award amount). [224--F]

E           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10755 of
    1995.

         From the .Judgment and Order dated 15.6.94 of the Guwahati High
    Court in M.A.(F) No. 72 of 1993.

F           S.K. Tyagi and C.N. Sree Kumar for the Appellant.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        K. VENKATASWAMI, J. In spite of Notice of Lodgment of Petition
  of Appeal has been served, the Respondent has not entered appearance
G 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-
H Corporation. On 17.10.1983, when the bus reached the last stoppage and
      s_ CHANDA v. MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM src (K VENKATASWAMI, J.]        221

when the passengers were alighting from the bus, a bomb exploded inside A
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 compens11tion 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
                                                                             B
the appellant were permanent in nature and awarded a compensation of
Rs. 1,20,000 by order dated 2.2.1993.

        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               c
. 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               D
preferred this appeal.

         The appellant in his claim petition has categorically stated as fol-
lows:-
                                                                                  E
           "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      F
           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:
                                                                                  G
           "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.

                                                                                  H
    222                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A           Here in the case in hand, at the relevant time A~sam Agitation
            was in full swing which necessitated either the conductor of the
            bus or its driver to take extra care which was found Jacking here
            and as such the accident, I hold, took arising out of the use of
            motor vehicle and both cases are held maintainable."

B         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
    U% interest.

          The High Court was of the view that there was no question of
C 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 or the driver, but because of some other events over which
D           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
E           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 observed as
F follows:-

            "The first question which arises for consideration is whether the
            bomb bla~t which caused injuries to 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
G
            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 examina-
            tion of this finding of the High Court. This be done within eight
H           weeks. List thereafter."
     S. CHANDA v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, ASSAM SIC. [K VENKATASWAMI, J.J      223

     After perusing the documents produced pursuant to the above order           A
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 a11d Another v. Vatschala
Uttam More (Smt), [1991J 3 SCC 530 to support and to restore the Award
                                                                                 B
of the Tribunal which has been set aside by the High Court. In the said
case, there was a collision between a petrol tanker and a truck on a
National Highway at about 3.00 AM. , 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       c
place in the tanker causing bum 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.
                                                                                 D
      This Court while repelling various arguments put forward, repudiat-
ing 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          E
         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 appellate 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           F
         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 WdS 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 agre::-       G
         ment with the said approach of the High Court. In our opinion,
         the 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              H
    224                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A            accident. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petrol
             tank~r 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 v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others,
B   [1997] 8 sec 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
C   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 fi11ding of the Tribunal that
    the atmosphere during the period of accident was so polluted requiring
D   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%.
                                                                                    .
                                                                                    .
E         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
F 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.




                                                                                    -
    V.M.                                                        Appeal allowed.




              .,