Back
1989 Supreme(AP) 519
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.A.SWAMI, V.NEELADRI RAO
Dorakonda Venkatrama Seshachalapathi - Appellant
Versus
Vijayawada Co-operative central Bank - Respondent
Decided On : 11-23-89
SECTION 92-A OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939, PROVIDING FOR NO-FAULT LIABILITY IN MOTOR ACCIDENT CASES, APPLIES RETROSPECTIVELY TO ACCIDENTS OCCURRING PRIOR TO 1-10-1982, THE DATE OF ITS ENACTMENT.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 92-A - NO FAULT LIABILITY - APPLICABILITY TO ACCIDENTS OCCURRING PRIOR TO 1-10-1982 - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 92-A AND RELATED PROVISIONS - KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLE: SECTION 92-A OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939, PROVIDING FOR NO-FAULT LIABILITY IN MOTOR ACCIDENT CASES, APPLIES RETROSPECTIVELY TO ACCIDENTS OCCURRING PRIOR TO 1-10-1982, THE DATE OF ITS ENACTMENT.
Fact of the Case:
THE APPELLANT, A BANK INSPECTOR, SUSTAINED INJURIES TO HIS FINGERS IN A MOTOR ACCIDENT CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DRIVER OF THE BANK'S JEEP. HE FILED A PETITION CLAIMING COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 92-A OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939, WHICH PROVIDES FOR NO-FAULT LIABILITY IN MOTOR ACCIDENT CASES.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT HELD THAT SECTION 92-A OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939, APPLIES RETROSPECTIVELY TO ACCIDENTS OCCURRING PRIOR TO 1-10-1982, THE DATE OF ITS ENACTMENT. THE COURT INTERPRETED SECTION 92-A AND RELATED PROVISIONS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE SCHEME AND OBJECT OF THE PROVISION INDICATE THAT IT IS RETROSPECTIVE. THE COURT ALSO CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT SECTION 92-A WAS MADE OPERATIVE FROM 1-10-1982, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS INSERTED BY AN AMENDMENT ACT THAT CAME INTO EFFECT ON 10-12-1982.
Issues: 1. WHETHER SECTION 92-A OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939, APPLIES RETROSPECTIVELY TO ACCIDENTS OCCURRING PRIOR TO 1-10-1982? 2. WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 92-A FOR THE INJURIES SUSTAINED IN THE ACCIDENT?
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT APPLIED THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES TO DETERMINE THE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF SECTION 92-A. THE COURT CONSIDERED THE SCHEME AND OBJECT OF THE PROVISION, AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT IT WAS MADE OPERATIVE FROM A DATE PRIOR TO ITS ENACTMENT. THE COURT ALSO CONSIDERED RELEVANT CASE LAW AND CONCLUDED THAT SECTION 92-A APPLIES RETROSPECTIVELY.
Final Decision: THE COURT ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN PART AND AWARDED THE APPELLANT COMPENSATION OF RS. 7,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 12% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION.
( 1 ) THE victim in a motor accident is the appellant herein. He was working as a bank inspector of the Vijayawada Co-operative Central Bank (hereinafter referred to as the bank ) On 17-3-1979 he went in the jeep a. A. K. 1915 belonging to the bank from Vijayawada to Gampalagudem for collection of the amounts from the customers. While jeep was going from peddavaram via Yerramadu, the earth caved in, the wheel of the jeep crumbled and it fell down from the canal bund. The appellant who was travelling in the said jeep sustained injuries on his left ring finger and little finger. He underwent treatment. P. W. 4 the doctor who treated him stated that left ring finger was permanently disabled and little finger suffered partial disability. He claimed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation by alleging that the driver of the jeep drove it rashly and negligently. The trial court dismissed the petition holding that neither negligence nor rashness on the part of the driver was established. The learned Single Judge affirmed it.
( 2 ) SECTION 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provided no fault liability. It was incorporated by Act 47/192 which came into effect oa 10-12-82. Section 92-A was given effect from 1-10-82. By judgment dated 24-8-89, in C. M. A. 11/85 (judgment for the Bench delivered by learned judge Amareswari) we held that it applies even to cases where accidents have taken place prior to 1-10-82 the date on which Section 92-A had come into force. It was stated for the appellant that in view of the above judgment the compensation has to be allowed to the petitioner under Sec. 92-A motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
( 3 ) SRI N. V. Suryanarayana Murthy, the learned counsel for the R-2 insurance Company, submitced that some aspects were not raised before this Bench earlier and the said judgment requires reconsideration. So we heard him at length even at the stage of admission.
( 4 ) SECTION 92-A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 reads :" (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 seccion. (2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under subsection (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 tixed sum of seven thousand five hundred rupees. (3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be requited 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, negligent or default of 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, negligent 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 on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement". It is not specific that it refers only to accidents occurred after 1-10-1982. The decisions in Ram Sarup vs. Munshit and Rafiquennessa vs. Lal Bahadur cherri were referred to in our judgment dated 24-8-1989 in C. M. A. 11/85 and batch. Section 31 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as amended by punjab Act 10/60 considered in the former and Section (1) Assam Act, 1955 dealt with in the latter, are specific in regard to the retrospective effect. Sec. 92-A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 does not contain any words to indicate whether it is retrospective. In such a case, the scheme and the object for which the provision was
