SHAJU ALIAS SHAJI AND Vs. A V BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are filed by the claimants from a common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Appellant suffered personal injuries while travelling by the bus bearing registration No. KLS 1629 on 7.6.1995. The vehicle was proceeding along the Puthur-Marottichal public road from west to east. When the bus reached in front of the High School, Puthur, a group of people armed with dangerous weapons like sword, sticks and country bombs blocked the bus (sic road) and they attacked the passengers of the bus. They threw country bombs into the bus and in the blast the bus was damaged and petitioners who were sitting inside the bus were injured. They were hospitalised and now they are permanently disabled. According to the petitioners, the incident took place due to negligence of the respondent No. 2, who was driving the bus. It is alleged in the petition that even prior to the incident, the driver was aware that the incident would take place. It is further alleged in the petitions that the driver was warned by some local people when the bus reached at Puthur Centre that some people were waiting near the Puthur High School armed with weapons. Had the driver been cautious and taken care not to take the vehicle to the incident spot, this accident could have been avoided. The respondent No. 1 was the registered owner of the bus and it was insured with the insurance company, respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 1 filed written statement admitting that the petitioners travelled in the bus in question on 7.6.1995. But the injuries of the petitioners not arose out of the use of a motor vehicle. According to them, the miscreants were waiting with weapons in order to attack the petitioners. It was further contended that they were attacked only after they had got down from the bus. So, according to them, it was in no way connected with any negligence on the part of the driver, respondent No. 2. The accident had no connection with the use of motor vehicle. It was also pointed out that no criminal case was registered against the respondent No. 2 for rashness and negligence. Petitioners did not sustain injuries in a road traffic accident but because of the attack of some miscreants. There was no negligence on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Hence they denied the liability of paying compensation. The insurance company, respondent No. 3, filed written statement taking similar contentions. They also contended that since there was no road traffic accident they are not liable to pay compensation though they have admitted the policy of the bus.

(2.) Only four claimants were examined in support of the claim petitioners. No independent evidence was adduced to show that even before the incident had occurred the driver was warned by local people that miscreants were waiting to attack the bus, etc. Conductor of the bus was examined to prove that driver of the bus was driving the vehicle on the normal route. When the bus reached at the incident spot, the mob asked the driver to stop the vehicle. But, he was not willing to stop the bus. But the bus was blocked and attack started and somebody tried to inflict a sword cut on the respondent No. 2, since he was not willing to stop the bus. But, fortunately that cut fell on the door by the side of the driver. So, he had no alternative but to stop the bus. It was at that time, the violence started.

(3.) Exh. A1 was produced by the appellants to prove the case whether the F.I. statement is in connection with the claim. It was given by claimant in O.P. No. 1382 of 1996. Tribunal after considering the F.I. statement found as follows: