K. NANDAKUMAR versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, THANTHAI PERIYAR TRANSPORT CORPN.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 633 · Decided: 14-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

K. NANDAKUMAR 
v. 
MANAGING DIRECTOR, THANTHAI PERIYAR 
TRANSPORT CORPN . 
• 
FEBRUARY 14, 1996 
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: 
A 
B 
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 
A 
B 
634 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2S.C.R. 
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. 
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. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Section 92-A reads thus : 
"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 
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 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 
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 PERIY AR 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 it
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.