SAMIR CHANDA versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, ASSAM STATE TPT. CORPN.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 219 · Decided: 01-09-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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 
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 
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 
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 
219 
E 
F 
G 
H 
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] 
D 
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. 
(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 
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 
the appellant were permanent in nature and awarded a compensation of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.