( 1 ) THE appellant is the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The respondents are the husband, four major sons and two married daughters of the deceased Lakshmidevamma. The accident occurred on december 22, 1984 at about 9 A. M. near Musunuru village, Kavali taluk, nellore district. Laxmidevamma died due to the rash and neglect driving of the driver of the Corporation (R. W. 1) of the bus APZ 3605. The respondents laid a claim in a total sum of Rs. 50,000/ -. The Tribunal below awarded a sum of Rs. 32,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- towards no-fault liability under section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939 (for short the Act"), rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of dependency. It also granted a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to each of the respondents for general damages. Assailing the legality thereof, this appeal has been filed.

( 2 ) THE contention of Sri Reddappa Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation is that the respondents could not have laid the claim both under Sections 110-A and 92-A of the Act and they can make under either of the two sections; the tribunal below has committed a grievous error in awarding compensation under both the sections. It is also contended that respondents 2 to 7 being major married sons and daughter living separately from the mother are not entitled to any amount towards general damages and therefore, there is a manifest error of law committed by the Tribunal.

( 3 ) SRI M. V. S. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that a reading of Section 92-A clearly postulates that there is a minimum statutory liability of Rs. 15,000/- and the claimants are entitled to lay the claim both under Sections 110-A and 92-A of the Act and the language in Section 92-A gives indication in that regard.

( 4 ) THEREFORE, the question is whether the claimants are entitled to lay the claim simultaneously both under Sections 110-A and also under Section 92-A of the Act? It is doubted that in a claim under Section 110-A, the claimant is entitled to compensation for the injuries of the victim or the death of the deceased at the behest of her or his legal representatives on diverse grounds enumerated therein and settled by various decisions of supreme Court, this High Court and various other High Courts. There is no dispute in that regard. Section 92-A was introduced by amendment act 47 of 1982 with effect from December 10, 1982. It reads as follows :-"92-A. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.----- (1) Where the death or permanent disablement of any peron 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. The amount of compensation which shall be payable under Subsection (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sura 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 established that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other persons. (4) The 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 person in the responsibility

Click Here to Read the rest of this document