MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. SAMIR CHANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are against the judgments and awards dated 2.2.93 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati in MACT Case No. 64(K) of 1984 (MA(F) 72/93 and MACT Case No. 65(K) of 1984 (MA(F) No. 73/93).

(2.) THE question which arises in these two cases are that whether a Motqr Accidents Claims Tribunal can pass an award with regard to injuries caused by bomb blast by terrorist activities. On 17.10.93 at about 7.55 p.m. the ASTC city bus stopped at the last stoppage near the 4th APBn. During the stationary condition passengers started alighting from the bus and in the meantime a bomb exploded which caused grievous injuries to the claimants. The learned Tribunal found that there is no omission or commission or violation of any provision of Motor Vehicles Act or Rules framed thereunder. "But when the atmosphere is polluted and there is possibility of internal or external endanger to the vehicle, however remote the cause might be an extra vigilance and care is necessary even when the vehicle is found properly parked and in stationary condition. The driver and conductor are bound to take extra care which are found lacking here."

(3.) EVEN in the earliest case of tort in Rylands v. Fletcher which is founded upon a theory of strict liability, it was pointed out that in order to be liable under the tort there must be duty cast on the owner if the damage is caused because of interference of a stranger and over such activities the owner has no control, the owner shall not be liable.