Q. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance company having been aggrieved by the judgment dated 17-6-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court (S. Dasaratharama Reddy, J.) in C. M. A. No. 1644 of 1991.

( 2 ) IN an accident which took place on 17-9-1984 the claimant received injuries which ultimately resulted in amputation of her leg. She filed two applications, one under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the other under Section 110-A claiming compensation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, after considering the entire material on record and the evidence adduced by both the parties, found that the claimant is entitled to compensation for a total sum of. 24,950/- to be recovered from the owner and dismissed the claim as against the Insurance Company, the appellant herein. Having been aggrieved by the said judgment of the lower Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle preferred an appeal. The appeal was allowed in part confirming the compensation granted by the Tribunal but a change was effected as regards the liability. The learned Single Judge, on appeal, found that the appellant and the 2nd respondent, (i. e. , the owner and the Insurance Company) are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs. 7,500/- under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act to the injured. As against the said order of the learned Single Judge, this L. P. A is preferred by the Insurance Company.

( 3 ) THE amendment to Section 92-A of the M. V. Act came into force with effect from October 1982 and the accident in question took place on 17-9-1984, i. e. , subsequent to the coming into force of the amendment. As per the amendment, as the claimant is an injured person, he is entitled to Rs. 7,500/- under Section 93-A of the Act. The contention that has been advanced by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company is that as the claimant is only a gratuitous passenger, he is not entitled to recover any compensation from the Insurance Company since the policy does not cover risk in the case of death of or injury to a gratuitous passenger. A learned Single Judge while construing Sections 92-A, 92-B (3), 92-E, 93 (ba), 95 (1) (b), 96,110-A and 110-B of the M. V. Act, in the case of k Ramulu vs. S. K, Khaja, found that a person, who travelled on hire or reward is entitled to recover the amount from the Insurance Company also. In this connection it is useful to extract Section 92-A of the Act, which reads as follows:-"liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of 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 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 fixed 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 and 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 of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default or the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (4) A claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such persori in the responsibility for su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document