Ordered Motor Accident Claims Tribunal To Pass Fresh Judgement In 1999 Bus Electrocution Case, After Hearing Power Company: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court in the case Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. Prafulla Brahma and 3 Ors observed and has set aside the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup’s order wherein the court directed the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited, APDCL in order to pay compensation to a person who got injured which being due to electrocution of a bus in which he
was travelling.
The single judge bench headed by Justice Parthiv Jyoti Saikia in the case observed and has noted that no notice was issued to APDCL and without hearing it. Thus, it has been directed the Tribunal to pay the
compensation.
The court stated that this court is of the opinion that this act on the part of the Tribunal being against the values of the natural justice.
The bench in the case observed that the bus was coming from the Latibari side which being towards Guwahati carrying huge quantity of bananas on its roof on 08.08.1999. Therefore, the loaf of the bus hit overhead live electric wires and many passengers of the bus got electrocuted and some of them died. Thus, in the incident, the claimant was severely injured.
The court in the case observed that the APDCL was not a party and in the year 2020, the APCDL was made a party respondent in the case by the order of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal in the case directed the APDCL to pay compensation and the judgement is to be delivered on 11.11.2020.
The APDCL approached the High Court by way of the present appeal as it has been stated under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The counsel appearing for the APDCL submitted before the court that no notice was given to APDCL and the Tribunal directed them to pay compensation, without hearing the same.
Adding to it, it has been stated before the court that in the accident, several persons died or were injured and all of them filed claim cases wherein APDCL was made party.
Further, it was argued that since the APDCL had the knowledge about other cases, thus, it should also have the knowledge of the present case.
Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded back the matter to the Tribunal for passing the judgment afresh after hearing APDCL.