PETITIONER:
K. NANDAKUMAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MANAGING DIRECTOR, THANTHAL PERIYARTRANSPORT CORPORATION.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/02/1996
BENCH:
BHARUCHA S.P. (J)
MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1217 1996 SCC (2) 736
1996 SCALE (2)308
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
The appellant was injured in a motor accident on 15th January, 1987. The accident took place by reason of a collision between the motor cycle which the appellant was riding and a bus belonging to the respondent. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, seeking compensation from the respondent in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The respondent contested the claim and alleged that it was the appellant who had been negligent. The case of the respondent in this behalf was upheld by the Tribunal and by the High Court in appeal. This finding is not now contested.
That the appellant suffered permanent disability as a result of the accident was found and is not in issue. What is in issue is the finding on the High Court in the order under appeal that, even so, the appellant was not entitled to "no fault compensation" under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. According to the High Court, the appellant was not entitled to this compensation because he was found to have been negligent. It relied upon the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amending Act by reason of which Section 92-A in Chapter VII-A had been introduced, and the judgments of this Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Anr., (1987) 3 SCC 234, and Minu B. Mehta and another vs. Balkrishna Ramachaandra Nayan and another, (1977) 2 SCC 441, to hold the provisions of that Section 92-A apply only when there is no negligence on the pert of the deceased or the injured person, as the case may be. Section 92-A reads thus:
"S.92-A. Liability to pay
compensation in certain cases on
the principles to no fault. - (1)
where the death or permanent
disablement of any person has
resulted from an accident arising
out of the use of a motor vehicle
or motor vehicles, the owner of the
vehicle shall, or. as the case may
be, the owners of the vehicles
shall, jointly and severally, be
liable to pay compensation in
respect of such death or
disablement in accordance with the
provisions of this section.
(2) The amount of compensation
which shall be payable under sub-
section (1) in respect of the death
of any person shall be a fluid sum
of fifteen thousand rupees and the
amount of compensation payable
under that sub-section in respect
of the permanent disablement of
any person shall be a fixed sum of
seven thousand five hundred rupees.
(3) In any claim for compensation
under sub-section (1), the claimant
shall not be required to plead and
establish that the death or
permanent disablement in respect to
which the claim has been made was
due to any wrongful act, neglect or
default to the owner or owners of
the vehicle or vehicles concerned
or of any other person.
(4) A claim for compensation under
subsection (1) shall not be
detected by reason of any wrongful
act, neglect or default of the
person an respect of whose death or
permanent disablement the claim has
been made nor shall the quantum of
compensation recoverable in respect
to such death or permanent
disablement be reduced on the basis
of tho share of such person in the
responsibility for such death or
permanent disablement."
By reason of sub-section (1) of Section 92-A, an absolute liability is cast upon the owner of a vehicle to pay compensation in respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from an accident arising out of its use. By reason of sub-section (3), the claimant is not required to plead or establish that the death or disablement was due to a wrongful act or neglect or default to the owner or any other person. Sub-section (4) is in two parts. The first pert states that a claim for compensation under the Section is not defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person who had died or suffered permanent disablement. The second part states that the quantum of compensation is not to be diminished even if the person who had died or suffered permanent disablement bore some responsibility for his death or disablement.
There was, therefore, on a plain reading of Section 92-A, particularly, the first part of subsection (4) thereof, no basis for holding that a claim thereunder could be made only if the person who had died or suffered permanent disablement had not been negligent. The provision being clear, no external aid to its construction, such as the Statement of Objects and Reasons, was called for.
The judgment in the case of Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (supra) dealt principally with the question whether the brother to a person who had died in motor accident could claim compensation under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In paragraph 10 of the judgment it was observed"
".... From the point to view of the
pedestrian the roads of this
country have been rendered by the
use of the motor vehicles highly
dangerous. ’Hit and run’ cases
where the drivers of the motor
Vehicles who have caused the
accidents are not known are
increasing in number. Where a
pedestrian without negligence on
his part is injured or killed by a
motorist whether negligently or
not, he or his legal
representatives as the case may be
should be entitled to recover
damages if the principle of social
justice should have any meaning at
all. In order to meet to some
extent the responsibility of the
society to the deaths and injuries
caused in road accidents there has
been a continuous agitation
throughout the word to make the
liability for damages arising out
of motor vehicles accidents as a
liability without fault, in order
to meet the above social demand on
the recommendation of the Indian
Law Commission Chapter VII-A was
introduced in the Act. Sections 92-
A to 92-E of the Act are to be
found in Chapter VII-A. Section 92-
E of the Act provides that the
provisions of Chapter VII-A shall
have effect notwithstanding
anything contained in any other
provision of the Act or of any
other law for the time being in
force. Section 22-A of the Act
provides that where the death or
permanent disablement of any person
has resulted from an accident
arising out of the use of a motor
vehicle or motor vehicles, the
owner of the vehicle shall, or, as
the case may be, the owners of The
vehicles shall, jointly and
severally, be liable to pay
compensation in respect to such
death or disablement in accordance
with the provisions of the said
section ". The words emphasized by the High Court are underlined. This passage does not interpret Section 92 A; the sentence in which the underlined words occur is a statement of a principle of social justice.
The decision in the case of Minu B. Mehta & Anr. vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayar & Anr. (ibid) was rendered before Section 92 A was introduced into the statute and is of no assistance in its interpretation.The appellant is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 92-A and to compensation on the sum of Rs.7,500/-, as quantified therein for permanent disability.
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside. The respondent shall pay to the appellant compensation in the sum of Rs.7,500/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per annum from the date of the appellant’s claim petition till payment or realization.
There shall be no order as to costs.