UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. M SATYAVATHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the above two appeals arise out of a common order in O.P.No. 426,366 and 539 of 1987 dt. 28-6-1988, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Medak.

(2.) So far as the contention as regards "no fault liability" is concerned, it has been stated that the order granting compensation has become final and as such it cannot be interfered with.

(3.) In a case arising under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'), whether or not the act of negligence in driving the vehicle is proved, if the Tribunal finds that the policy is in existence and even if the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident is not proved, the claimants would be entitled for compensation. If the accident occurred prior to the amendment of the Act, the claimants would be entitled for compensation at Rs.15,000/-, and, on the other hand if it occurred after the amendment of the Act, the claimants would be entitled for compensation at Rs.25,000/-. No evidence is required to prove that there is fault or rash and negligent driving and the parties are entitled for a particular amount as compensation as fixed by the Statute. So the finality that has been reached with regard to the claim under Section 92-A of the Act, cannot be termed as res judicata.