The provisions relating to the no-fault liability principle are contained in Chapter X which contains Sections 140 to 144. We will now discuss these sections in detail.
Sections 140 to 144
S. 140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.
(1) Where 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 twenty- five 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 twelve thousand 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.
I. Requirements of this section:
Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement[7]. Ingredients of ‘No Fault Liability’ are;
There shall be death of or permanent disablement to any person.
It should have resulted from an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle.
The owner of the vehicle shall be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement.
According to Section 2 (30) of the act, “owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under the agreement.
In the case of Motor Owners’ Vehicles Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavi Modi[8], the vehicle cannot cease to a vehicle merely because the petrol tanker had turn turtle as a result of the collision and was lying at a short distance away from the road, does not mean that it had ceased to be suitable or fit for use on the road and it had ceased to be a motor vehicle.
According to contemplation of legislature, the object of provisions of Section 140 is relief to be provided to widow and orphans quickly and instantly to prevent their destitution and that object of legislature can only be fulfilled if orders under Section 140 are passed immediately to ensure relief quickly effectively and positively[9].
The provisions contained in Section 140 are benevolent and are intended to offer financial aid, in the shape of interim award, promptly to the victim or legal representatives of the victim of the accident on the basis of “No Fault liability”. It is well established that the tribunal is obligated to pass the order. The following ingredients are sufficient.
The vehicle is involved in the accident.
The owner has an insurance policy covering the liability under litigation.
Owner is joined as a party to the petition.
Permanent disability is suffered or death is caused due to accident as pleaded.
In Waman v. M.P. Section R.T.C[10], it was held that in the absence of insurance of the vehicle, the order can be made against the owner or driver of the vehicle.
II. Scope and Applicability of the Section:
Chapter X of the Act is an independent provision and the tribunal is bound to decide the claim application filed under Section 140 of the act for grant of interim compensation not withstanding the claimant having filed any other application under Section 166 or under any other provisions of the Act and the legislature have made it clear under the said section[11].
The provisions for payment of prompt and immediate compensation in respect of no fault liability by Section 92-A is in the spirit of social welfare legislation and should be interpreted beneficially in favour of the claimant and in such a matter the technicalities of law should not be allowed to have any upper hand, to undo and crush the spirit of legislation for social justice. Joinder or non-joinder of parties is too technical pleas to circumvent the spirit of such beneficial legislation. The very fact that the legislature decided to get the amount paid even without ascertaining any fault prima facie, goes to show that the object is that the claimant should not be allowed to go high and dry for long and they must get immediate relief[12].
In the case of Nabeesa v. M.A.C.T.[13], it was held that the amount awarded and deposited under Section 140 of the Act cannot be asked to be deposited and it should be released to the claimant so long as no other disputes are there.
In the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Tumu Gureva Reddy a landmark judgment was given by the tribunal which held that in a claim under Section 140, the following facts have to be proved[14]:
That a vehicle was involved in the accident.
That the victim received injuries in the accident causing his death or a permanent disability.
That the vehicle was insured with the insurance company under Chapter XI of the Act.
That the claim was made against the owner or the driver of the vehicle including the insurance company with whom the policy was obtained and that the policy was in operation on the date of the accident.
A tanker filled with motor spirit, toppled and fell in a land adjacent to the road and the driver ran away from the scene leaving the tanker unattended, in a highly dangerous position. The passers-by were ignorant of what had happened there and the injured claimants as also the deceased went to the spot to know as to what was happening there and suddenly there was fire in the tanker due to its bursting and the entire area was engulfed in fire and about 70 persons died and 35 persons sustained injuries. It was held that owing to the wide meaning of the term “arising out of the use of vehicle”[15], the accident in the present case could be said to have arisen out of the use of motor vehicle.
III. Filing of a petition under Section 166 is not a condition precedent for grant of interim compensation:
Filing of petition under Section 166 for compensation is not a condition precedent for making an application under this section based on “no-fault liability”. The dismissal of a petition for compensation under Section 166 on the ground of limitation only cannot stop operation of Section 140 which is based on “no-fault liability”[16].
Chapter X of the Act is an independent provision and the tribunal is bound to decide the claim application filed under Section 140 of the act for grant of interim compensation not withstanding the claimant having filed any other application under Section 166 or under any other provisions of the Act and the legislature have made it clear under the said section[17].
IV. Permanent Disablement:
For attracting Section 140 disablement suffered by injured should come within any clause of Section 142. Claim under Section 140 cannot be put forward for all injuries sustained in motor accident.[18] The following injuries are also considered to be permanent in nature:
Permanent impairing of the powers of left leg falls within the meaning of this section[19].
Part of finger is also a member. Thus, permanent impairment of the power of ring finger constitutes permanent disability under the section[20].
Fracture of bones can be called ‘privation of any member or joint’ as defined in Section 142 and it would mean ‘permanent disablement’ that can attract these provisions[21].
Where appellant sustained a fracture on his right hand and also a head injury due to which, for the time being, he became mentally derailed, held, in view of provision of Section 140, since the appellant suffered injuries resulting in permanent disablement he was entitled to receive the compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000[22].
Where evidence discloses that the left ring finger of the appellant was permanently disabled and his little finger suffered partial disability. It is a case of permanent disability under this section and compensation of Rs. 7,500 is awarded with interest[23].
V. No fault liability is cast on owner and not directly on insurer:
A reading of this section would make it clear that no fault liability is cast on the owner of the vehicle and not directly on the insurer. If the owner of the vehicle is found liable, the liability of the insured also would arise.
In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sasilatha[24], where the owner herself had come forward for compensation against the insurer of her own vehicle which was held to be the offending vehicle, it was held that such a claim was not to be maintained.
A registered owner is liable for payment. He is to recover the amount if he has sold the vehicle to another person, he can recover that amount from the purchaser[25].
VI. Liability of insurer:
Though the word “insurer” does not find place anywhere in Section 92-A, insurer is liable to indemnify the owner for any compensation awarded under the said section and the insurer cannot be excluded from the liability to pay compensation under Section 92-A. It is, therefore, clear that the word “insurer” is not necessary under the provisions of this act, and by virtue of insurance, insurer is liable to pay the amount of insurance[26].
The liability of the insurer arises only when the liability of the insured is upheld[27]. The insurance company is liable to pay under this section and thereafter recover the amount from the owner without any suit or proceeding[28].
VII. Quantum of Compensation:
The tribunal while granting the interim award has no jurisdiction to reduce the amount fixed by the legislature[29]. There is no provision that warrants a conclusion that compensation is payable only in the case of no negligence by the deceased or the injured person as the case may be[30]. In the case of Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. Aiysa Bibi[31], it was held that interim compensation is to be deducted from the total payable compensation that has been awarded.
VIII. Scope of enquiry:
In the case of Lakhan Singh Niranjan v. Ramkesh[32], it was held that, it has to be seen whether in view of the averments contained in the petition, a prima facie for grant of interim compensation is made out. A detailed enquiry is not contemplated at this stage.
IX. Negligence of owner or driver need not be proved:
In case of tortuous liability, negligence or rashness of the driver has to be established, while it need not be established in case of no fault liability[33]. To make a claim under this section, it is not required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement was made due to any wrongful or negligent act or default by the driver/owner of the vehicle. There is no provision that warrants a conclusion that compensation is payable only in the case of no negligence by the deceased or the injured person as the case may be[34].
141. Provisions as to other right to claim compensation for death or permanent disablement.
(1) The right to claim compensation under Section 140 in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person shall be in addition to any other right (hereafter in this section referred to as the right on the principle of fault) to claim compensation in respect thereof under any other provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force.
(2) A claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and where compensation is claimed in respect of such death or permanent disablement under section 140 and also in pursuance of any right on the principle of fault, the claim for compensation under section 140 shall be disposed of as aforesaid in the first place.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), where in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, the person liable to pay compensation under section 140 is also liable to pay compensation in accordance with the right on the principle of fault, the person so liable shall pay the first- mentioned compensation and--
if the amount of the first- mentioned compensation is less than the amount of the second- mentioned compensation, he shall be liable to pay (in addition to the first- mentioned compensation) only so much of the second- mentioned compensation as is equal to the amount by which it exceeds the first- mentioned compensation;
if the amount of the first- mentioned compensation is equal to or more than the amount of the second- mentioned compensation, he shall not be liable to pay the second- mentioned compensation.
Section 141 makes provision to claim compensation for death or permanent disability beside the claim for no fault liability. It is evident that the amount paid on the principle of no fault is to be adjusted under the claim which is ultimately allowed by the tribunal[35].
Though the word “insurer” does not find place anywhere in Section 92-A, insurer is liable to indemnify the owner for any compensation awarded under the said section and the insurer cannot be excluded from the liability to pay compensation under Section 92-A. It is, therefore, clear that the word “insurer” is not necessary under the provisions of this act, and by virtue of insurance, insurer is liable to pay the amount of insurance[36].
The liability which accrues under the provisions has to be borne by the insurer even if it is ultimately held that under the policy of insurance, the insurer is not liable to pay for the compensation in question[37].
142. Permanent disablement.
For the purposes of this Chapter, permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an accident of the nature referred to in sub- section (1) of Section 140 if such person has suffered by reason of the accident, any injury or injuries involving--
(a) Permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, or privation of any member or joint; or
(b) Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint; or
(c) Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
Permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an accident, if such person has suffered by reason of the accident, any injury or injuries involving;
Permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either year, or privation of any member or joint.
Destruction or permanent impairing of any member or joint.
Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
Section 142 seeks to define injuries which are considered permanent for the purposes of this act. The following injuries are considered to be permanent in nature:
Permanent impairing of the powers of left leg falls within the meaning of this section[38].
Part of finger is also a member. Thus, permanent impairment of the power of ring finger constitutes permanent disability under the section[39].
Fracture of bones can be called ‘privation of any member or joint’ as defined in Section 142 and it would mean ‘permanent disablement’ that can attract these provisions[40].
Where appellant sustained a fracture on his right hand and also a head injury due to which, for the time being, he became mentally derailed, held, in view of provision of Section 140, since the appellant suffered injuries resulting in permanent disablement he was entitled to receive the compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000[41].
Where evidence discloses that the left ring finger of the appellant was permanently disabled and his little finger suffered partial disability. It is a case of permanent disability under this section and compensation of Rs. 7,500 is awarded with interest[42].
143. Applicability of Chapter to certain claims under Act 8 of 1923.
The provisions of this Chapter shall also apply in relation to any claim for compensation in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 resulting from an accident of the nature referred to in sub- section (1) of section 140 and for this purpose, the said provisions shall, with necessary modifications, be deemed to form part of that Act.
Section 143 lays down that the provisions of this section shall also apply in relation to any claims under Workmen’s Compensation Act. Where the employer only comes under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, there is no liability under this act. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner could pass an award against the insurer to the extent of no fault liability.
Chapter X of the Act is an independent provision and the tribunal is bound to decide the claim application filed under Section 140 of the act for grant of interim compensation not withstanding the claimant having filed any other application under Section 166 or under any other provisions of the Act and the legislature have made it clear under the said section[43].
144. Overriding effect.
The provisions of this Chapter shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force.
This section provides for overriding effect of this Chapter over any other provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force. The legislative intention manifested through Section 144 of the new Act is that the provision in Chapter X should get predominance over all other laws.
Bibliography
Aggarwal, Sukhdev, “A Commentary on the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988” Allahabad Law Agency, 2nd Ed, 2010.
Malik, Krishan Pal, “Motor Vehicles and Railway Accidents Claim and Compensation” Jain Book Depot, 3rd Ed, 2011.
[1] Malik, Krishan Pal, “Motor Vehicles and Railway Accidents Claim and Compensation” p. 35
[2] Aggarwal, Sukhdev, “A Commentary on the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988” p. 277
[3] Bishan Devi v. Siraksh Singh, (1980) 1 SCR 300
[4] Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahemdabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, (1987) 3 SCR 404
[5] Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi, AIR 1979 SC 1666
[6] Manjusri Raha v. B.L. Gupta, (1977) 2 SCR 944
[7] Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Garji Devi 1993 (2) ACC 652
[8] (1982) 1 SCR 860
[9] Payelbhen Jayeshbhai Yagnik v. Jayeshbhai J. Yagnik 2004 (1) ACC 355 MP
[10] (1994) 2 ACC 378 MP
[11] M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surja Ram AIR 2001 Pat. 47.
[12] Mahila Ramdevi v. Nand Kumar AIR 1988 MP 98
[13] 1988 ACJ 797 Ker.
[14] 2000 (2) ACC 85 AP (DB)
[15] Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More AIR 1991 SC 1769
[16] United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maganlal Hirabhai Patil 1998 (1) ACC 138
[17] Supra note 11.
[18] Mohemmed v. Devassia 2004 (1) ACC 120 Ker.
[19] Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Ram Kumar 1993 (1) ACC 182
[20] Dorakonda Venkatrama Seeshachalapathi v.Vijaywada Coop. Central Bank (1991) ACC 324
[21] Mahendra Prasad Mishra v. Mohd. Sabbir 1995 (1) ACC 259 MP
[22] Ram Kisho Mishra v. Brij Sharma 1998 (1) ACC 477 MP
[23] Supra note 20
[24] 2000 (1) ACC 264
[25] Section Sodhi v. Chander Vikas 2007 (1) LJR 223 PB
[26] Babban Tiwari v. Usha Ranjan Chakraborty 1988 (1) ACC 130
[27] Baatchigari Subba Rao v. A. Amarnath 2000 (2) ACC 257 AP
[28] United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suggu Venkata Raju 2005 (2) ACC 755 AP
[29] Hans Raj v. Charanjit Jawa 1995 (2) ACC 262
[30] K. Nanda Kumar v. Managing Director , Thantal Periyar Transport Corporation AIR 1996 SC 1217
[31] 2008 (4) ACC 680 (DB) Jharkhand
[32] 2000 (1) ACC 287 All.
[33] Supra note 20
[34] K. Nanda Kumar v. Managing Director , Thantal Periyar Transport Corporation AIR 1996 SC 1217
[35] New Assurance India Co. Ltd v. Smt. Inder Kaur AIR 1986 P&H 153
[36] Babban Tiwari v. Usha Ranjan Chakraborty 1988 (1) ACC 130
[37] National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Jethu Ram 1998 (2) ACC 612
[38] Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Ram Kumar 1993 (1) ACC 182
[39] Dorakonda Venkatrama Seeshachalapathi v.Vijaywada Coop. Central Bank (1991) ACC 324
[40] Mahendra Prasad Mishra v. Mohd. Sabbir 1995 (1) ACC 259 MP
[41] Ram Kisho Mishra v. Brij Sharma 1998 (1) ACC 477 MP
[42] Supra note 20
[43] M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surja Ram AIR 2001 Pat. 47.
