K. NANDAKUMARversusMANAGING DIRECTOR, THANTHAI PERIYAR TRANSPORT CORPN.

                     K. NANDAKUMAR                                            A
                            v.
           MANAGING DIRECTOR, THANTHAI PERIYAR
                    TRANSPORT CORPN .
                              •
                           FEBRUARY 14, 1996
                                                                              B
             [S.P. BHARUCHA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]

        Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:

       S.92-A-Accident-Claim-On a plain reading of the provision there is     C
no basis to hold that a claim could be made only if the person who had died
or suffered pennanent disablement had not been negligent.

      Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai
Prabhatibhai & Anr., [1987] 3 SCC 234 and Minu B. Mehta and Another v.
Balkrishan Ramachandra Nayar and Another, [1977] 2 SCC 441, distin-           D
guished.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3356 of
1992.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.9.92 of the Madras High             E
Court in C.M.A. No. 694 of 1991.

        V. Balachandran and V. Ramasubramaniam for the Appellants.

        Mrs. Aruna Mathur and A. Mariarputham for the Respondents.
                                                                              F
        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      The appellant was injured in a motor accident on 15th 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. The     G
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. 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 now contested.                                                 H
                                    633
    634                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [1996] 2S.C.R.

A        That the appellant suffered permanent disability as a result of the
  accident was found and is not in issue. What is in issue in the finding of
  the High Court in the order under appeal that, even so, that appellant was
  not entitled to "no fault compensation" under Section 92-A of the Motor
  Vehicles Act, 1989. According to the Higl\ Court, the appellant was not
  entitled to this compensation because he was found to have been negligent.
B
  It relied upon the Statement of Objects and Reason of the Amending Act
  by reason of which Section 92-A in Chapter VII-A had been introduced,
  and the judgments of this Court in Gujarat State Road Transport C01pora-
  tion, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Anr., [1987] 3 SCC 234, and
  Minzt B. Mehta and Another v. Balk1ishna Ramachandra Nayar andAnotlte1;
C (1977] 2 SCC 441, to hold the provisions of that section 92-A apply only
  when there is not negligence on the part of the deceased or the injured
  person, as the case may be.

          Section 92-A reads thus :

D           "S. 92-A. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the
            principles of no fault. - (1) where the death or permanent disable-
            ment of any person has resulted from an accident .arising out of
            the use of 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
E           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
F           fixed sum of fifteen thousand rupees and the amount of compen-
            sation 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
G           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.

H           (4) A claim for compensation under sub section (1) shall not be
       K. NANDAKUMAR v. THANTHAI PERIYAR TPT. CORPN.                      635

        defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the A
        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 respon-
        sibility for such death or permanent disablement".
                                                                                 B
      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 C
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 D
~esponsibility for his death or disablement.


       There was, therefore, on a plain reading of Section 92-A, particularly,
the first part of sub-section (4) thereof, no basis for holding that a claim
thereunder could be made only if the person who had died or suffered             E
permanent disablement had not been negligent. The provision being clear,
no external aid to its construction, such as the Statement of Objects and
Reasons, was called for.

      The Judgment in the case of Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai (supra) dealt
principally with the question whether the brother of a person who had died       F
in a motor accident could claim compensation under Section 110-D of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In paragr~ph 10 of the judgment it was ob-
served"                                                    '

        "........... From the point of view of the pedestrian the roads of this
        country have been rendered by the use of the motor vehicles highly G
        dangerous. 'Hit and run' cases where the drivers of the motor
        vehicles who have caused the accidents are not known are increas-
        ing in number. Where a pedestrian without negligence on his part
        is injured or killed by a motorist whether negligently or not, he or
        his legal representatives as the case may be should be entitled to . H
      636                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1996] 2 S.C.R.

 A              recover damages if the principle of social justice should have any
                meaning at all. In order to meet to some extent the responsibility
                of the society to the deaths and injuries caused in road accidents
                there has been a continuous agitation throughout the world to
                make the liability for damages arising out of motor vehicles acci-
                dents as a liability without fault. In order to meet the above social
- B             demand on the recommendation of the Indian Law Commission
                Chapter VII-A was introduced in the Act. Section 92-A to 92-E
                of the Act are to be found in Chapter VII-A. Section 92-E of the
                Act provides that the provisions of Chapter VII-A shall have effect
                notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of the
 c              Act or of any other law for the time being in force. Section 22-A
                of the Act provide,s that 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
 D
                or disablement in accordance with the provisions of the said
                section ....."

       The words emphasised by the High Court are underlined. This passage
       does not interpret Section 92-A; the sentence in which the underlined
 E     words occur is a statement of a principle of social justice.

             The decision in the Case of Minu B. Mehta & Anr. v. Balkrishna
       Ramchandra Nayar & Anr., (ibid) was rendered before Section 92-A was
       introduced into the statute and is of no assistance in its interpretation.

 F           The appellant is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section
       92-A and to compensation in the sum of Rs. 7,500 as quantified thereiri
       for permanent disability.

              The appeal is allowed. The Judgment and order under appeal is set
 G 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 cent per annum from
      · the date of the appellant's claim petition till payment or realisation.

              There shall be no order as to costs.

       G.N.                                                         Appeal allowed.