SRI JAYARAM ROADWAYS Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rev.Aplc.(MD) Nos. 124 This batch of Review Applications on hand are filed on the grounds that the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Samir Chanda v. Managing Director, Assam State Transport Corporation, 1998 ACJ 1351, has not been followed. In respect of the grounds stated supra, this Court has gone into the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Samir Chanda and the relevant Paragraph 15 of the above said Judgment cited supra are extracted hereunder:

(2.) On a plain reading of the facts before the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is unambiguous that those facts are absolutely inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand. Further, in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, there was no negligence on the part of the Owner or the Driver of the Bus in the light of the pleadings and of the evidence produced before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal therein. In other words, the negligence part had not been proved against the Owner of the Bus in the case before the Apex Court.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Review Petitioner has stated that the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand, are akin to that of the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Samir Chanda v. Managing Director, Assam State Transport Corporation, 1998 ACJ 1351. However, on reading of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the facts in the above said Samir Chand case is totally inapplicable to the facts of the case on hand. Thus, the decision taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, mainly on the ground that no negligence on the part of the Owner or the Driver of the Bus has been proved, cannot be adopted in respect of the facts in the present case. In view of the depositions, evidences and the findings of the Tribunal in the present case, it is pleaded that Ex.B3, Ex.B4, Ex.B5 ought to have fastened the liability on the National Insurance Company. This apart, it is stated that the Order of the State Consumer Forum viz., Ex.B3 was not considered. On the above stated grounds, the Order passed by this Court on 18.11.2016 is sought to be reviewed by the Petitioners herein. In respect of those documents and other factual aspects, this Court has come to the conclusion that the Driver and the Conductor of the Bus is absolutely responsible for loading of the explosives inside the passenger Bus. Further, it is proved beyond that the explosives were loaded in the passenger Bus only with the consent of the Bus Driver and the Conductor. This apart, the explosives were loaded nearby the Driver seat, more specifically, with the knowledge and the consent of the Bus Driver. Thus, these grounds raised have no merit consideration. The learned Counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner emphasized the grounds stated supra for reviewing the Order passed by this Court on 18.11.2016.