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

1989 Supreme(Ker) 177

Judges : U.L.BHAT,KRISHNAMOORTHY
Krishna Pillai - Appellant
Versus
Jalal Ahamed - Respondent
Case No : C.M.P. No. 3145 of 1989 in M.F.A No. 102 of 1989
Decided On : 06/01/1989
Advocates Appeared :
S. Sankarasubban; For Petitioner Jacob Murickan; For Respondents

S.92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act establishes a no-fault liability on the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation for death or disablement resulting from an accident, irrespective of the driver's rashness or negligence.

Headnote:

The petitioner was injured in a motor vehicle accident and filed a claim petition for compensation. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, which was challenged in the appeal. The petitioner contended that under S.92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, he was entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.7,500 on account of permanent disablement. The court found that the petitioner had sustained injuries and permanent disablement as evidenced by medical certificates. The court interpreted S.92-A to establish a no-fault liability on the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation for death or disablement resulting from an accident, irrespective of the driver's rashness or negligence. The court held that the liability under S.92-A can be recognized even without a formal application, as the provision serves the purpose of providing compensation in extreme cases, even in the absence of fault of the driver. The court directed the respondents to pay Rs. 7,500 to the petitioner.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was injured in a motor vehicle accident and filed a claim petition for compensation. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, which was challenged in the appeal. The petitioner contended that under S.92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, he was entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.7,500 on account of permanent disablement.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had sustained injuries and permanent disablement as evidenced by medical certificates. The court interpreted S.92-A to establish a no-fault liability on the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation for death or disablement resulting from an accident, irrespective of the driver's rashness or negligence.

Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of S.92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the entitlement of the petitioner to compensation for permanent disablement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the liability under S.92-A can be recognized even without a formal application, as the provision serves the purpose of providing compensation in extreme cases, even in the absence of fault of the driver.

Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to pay Rs. 7,500 to the petitioner.

Judgment :-

1. Petitioner herein is the appellant in the above appeal. He was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 1-12-1985. He filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming Rs.1 lakh as compensation on the allegation that the motor vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and such driving was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal held against the claimant and accordingly dismissed the claim petition. Dismissal is challenged in the appeal.

2. Petitioner has filed this C.M.P. contending that in any event under S.92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act he was entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/- (on account of permanent disablement) and the Tribunal was in serious error. He therefore prays that this court may award it. The application is strenuously opposed by the third respondent-insurer, who has filed a counter. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that no amount could be directed to be paid by the insurer under S.92-A because the claimant did not file a formal application in that behalf. According to the learned counsel, Tribunal could not exercise the power suo motu. He also contends that permanent disability has not been proved.

3. There can be no dispute that the claimant had sustained certain injuries in the accident He received medical treatment also. Ext.A5 is a copy of the wound certificate. Ext.A6 is the discharge card issued to him from the Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum. Exts.A7 and A8 are similar cards. Ext. A9 series are medical bills. Ext. A12 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Officer of the Medical College, Trivandrum. Ext.A6 shows that the petitioner had compound fracture of both bones of the right leg and has undergone three major surgical procedures at the hospital. The certificate shows that 100% temporary disability from the date of injury till February 1987 and 17% permanent disability has been assessed. Permanent disability is on account of limitation of right angle movement and limitation of knee flexion up to 80 o (Rt) with chronicostemyelities right tibia. Certificate was marked evidently without objection and provides ample material to show that there is a permanent disablement sustained by the petitioner.

4. The present claim is under S.92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It reads thus: "92-A 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 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 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 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 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, 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 for such death or permanent disablement."

5. A reading of the above provision would make it clear that wherever death or disablement of any person has resulted from an accident as contempla



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 Back to top