K. Nandakumar Vs. Managing Director, Thanthal Periyar Transport Corporation.

 

K. Nandakumar Vs. Managing Director, Thanthal Periyar Transport Corporation.

Facts-

1.     The appellant was injured in a motor accident on 15^th 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.

2.     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/-.

3.     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 contested.

4.     That the appellant suffered permanent disability as a result of the accident.

5.     According to the appellant, he was going on a motor cycle, east to west on the road in question and the respondent’s bus TML 8774 came from the opposite direction and hit against his motor cycle and caused severe injuries to him and despite the fact that he had to take treatment as in-patient till 2.12.1987, he remained handicapped and disabled etc., the respondent Corporation denied that its driver was negligent and contended that only the appellant was negligent.

Issues-

       1. Whether the defendant was negligent or the appellant himself?

       2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to claim no fault compensation under section 92a of motor vehicles act 1939?

      3.Whether the plaintiff was entitled to claim any compensation for his disability?

Held-

By reason of sub-section (1) of Section 92-A, an absolute liability is cast upon the owner of a vehicle to pay compensation in respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from an accident arising out of its use. By reason of sub-section (3), the claimant is not required to plead or establish that the death or disablement was due to a wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner or any other person. Sub-section (4) is in two parts. The first part states that a claim for compensation under the Section is not defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person who had died or suffered permanent disablement. The second part states that the quantum of compensation is not to be diminished even if the person who had died or suffered permanent disablement bore some responsibility for his death or disablement.

Conclusion-

The decision in the case of Minu B. Mehta &Anr. Vs. BalkrishnaRamchandraNayar&Anr. (ibid) was rendered before Section 92 A was introduced into the statute and is of no assistance in its interpretation. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 92-A and to compensation on the sum of Rs.7,500/-, as quantified therein for permanent disability .The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside. The respondent shall pay to the appellant compensation in the sum of Rs.7,500/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per annum from the date of the appellant’s claim petition till payment or realization.