The High Court appears to have taken the view that it was so.
1,20,000/ and awarded the said sum with 12 interest.
The other passengers also suffered serious injuries due to the bomb explosion.
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 companydition.
Here in the case in hand, at the relevant time Assam Agitation was in full swing which necessitated either the companyductor 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.
Aggrieved by that, the Respondent preferred an appeal to the Guwahati High Court in M.A. F NO.
The appellant was a passenger in a bus belonging to the Respondent Corporation.
the learned companynsel for the petitioner wants to produce the entire evidence adduced before the Tribunal to enable proper examination of this finding of the High Court.
The jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal depends on the companyrectness of this finding.
on account of this, the appellant preferred M.A.C. Case No.
The appellant in his claim petition has categorically stated as follows On the date of accident, the claimant boarded the bus at Judges field in order to go to his residence at Kahilipara.
The facts, as found by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati, are given below.
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.
72/93.
After perusing the documents produced pursuant to the above order dated 18.9.1995, this Court granted leave on 20.11.1995.
This be done within eight weeks.
The High Court did number disturb the findings of the Tribunal on facts.
The driver of the bus did number take due care and caution in driving the bus.
List thereafter.
The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court has preferred this appeal.
In support of that statement, an evidence was also given before the Tribunal.
After fixing the liability on the Respondent, the Tribunal assessed the companypensation in a sum of Rs.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the award of the Tribunal.
3,82,000/ .
About four hours later, an explosion took place in the tanker causing burn injuries to those assembled near it and one such persons legal representative filed claim petition before the Tribunal under section 92 A as well as under section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
1,20,000/ by order dated 2.2.19993.
However, it was of the view that there was numbernegligence on the part of the owner or the driver of the vehicle and, therefore, the question of paying companypensation did number arise.
The Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the claim since the bomb had exploded inside the bus.
Venkataswami, J. In spite of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal has been serve, the Respondent has number entered appearance to companytest this appeal.
