SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 372

S.B.MAJMUDAR, S.P.BHARUCHA
K. Nandakumar – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, Thanthal Periyar Transport Corporation – Respondent


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.

2. 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 of 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



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top