http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: K. NANDAKUMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MANAGING DIRECTOR, THANTHAL PERIYARTRANSPORT CORPORATION.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       14/02/1996

BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1217            1996 SCC  (2) 736  1996 SCALE  (2)308

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                        O R D E R      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    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  sub- section (4)  thereof, no basis for holding that a claim

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

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.