Priyaswami Alagappa Arundudhi vs Mahesrajahan Rafiq Ahmed Khan And ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 1171 Bom

JUDGMENT

A.P. Shah, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.B. Kotak appearing for the petitioner. Respondents are absent despite notice.

2. The petitioner was injured in motor accident on 26.5.2000. The accident took place at about 6.30 p.m. at Senapati Bapat Marg, Mahim, Mumbai when a truck owned by the respondent No. 1 knocked down the petitioner. The petitioner was badly injured and he was treated at K.E.M. Hospital. The hospital authority has issued certificate to the effect that the petitioner has suffered amputation of forefoot and 25 per cent permanent disability.

3. That the petitioner suffered partial disability as a result of the accident was not seriously disputed before the Tribunal. What is in issue is the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the alcoholism. The Tribunal has observed that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor and that the fact that he himself dashed against the motor vehicle cannot be ruled out. In other words, according to the Tribunal the accident had occurred due to negligence of the petitioner. The short question is whether provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 apply only when there is no negligence on the part of the injured person.

4. Section 140 reads as under:

"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 fifty 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 twenty-five 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.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force:

Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section or under Section 163-A."

5. By reason of Sub-section (1) of Section 140, 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 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.

6. In K. Nandakumar v. Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Trans. Corporation Ltd., , the Supreme Court construed the provisions of old Section 92-A which are pari materia with provisions of the present Section 140 of the said Act. The court held that on a plain reading of Section 92-A, particularly the first part of Sub-section (4) thereof, there is no basis for holding that a claim thereunder could be made only if the person who had died or suffered permanent disablement had not been negligent and the provision being clear, no external aid to its construction, such as the Statement of Objects and Reasons, was called for. The Tribunal has thus erred in rejecting petitioner's application on the ground that he was responsible for the accident. There fore, the order of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment.

7. Rule is made accordingly absolute in terms of the order above.