In 1999 Bus Electrocution Case, Gauhati High Court Orders Motor Accident Claims Tribunal To Pass Fresh Judgment After Hearing Power Company
The Gauhati High Court recently set aside the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup's order directing Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) to pay compensation to a person who got injured due to electrocution of a bus in which he was travelling.The single judge bench of Justice Parthiv Jyoti Saikia noted that no notice was issued to APDCL and without hearing it, the Tribunal...
The Gauhati High Court recently set aside the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup's order directing Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) to pay compensation to a person who got injured due to electrocution of a bus in which he was travelling.
The single judge bench of Justice Parthiv Jyoti Saikia noted that no notice was issued to APDCL and without hearing it, the Tribunal directed payment of compensation. "This Court is of the opinion that this act on the part of the Tribunal is against the values of the natural justice,” the bench said.
On August 08, 1999, a bus was coming from the Latibari side towards Guwahati carrying huge quantity of bananas on its roof. The load of the bus hit overhead live electric wires. Many passengers of the bus got electrocuted and some of them died. The claimant was severely injured in the incident.
Originally, in the claim before the Tribunal, the APDCL was not a party. However, on September 9, 2020, APCDL was made a party respondent in the case by the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal delivered the judgment on November 11, 2020 and directed APDCL to pay compensation.
Aggrieved by the judgment, the APDCL approached the High Court by way of the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The counsel appearing for the APDCL submitted that no notice was given to APDCL and without hearing it, the Tribunal directed them to pay compensation. He added that in the accident, several persons died or were injured and all of them filed claim cases wherein APDCL was made party. It was argued that since the APDCL had the knowledge about other cases, it should have the knowledge of the present case also.
The court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded back the matter to the Tribunal for passing a judgment afresh after hearing APDCL.
Case Title: Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. Prafulla Brahma and 3 Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 78