NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. NAMABAI SIMBACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -insurance company is resisting the claim of the respondents under section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act 4 of 1939), as amended by the Amendment Act 4 of 1982, with effect from October 1, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) THE admitted facts are that, N. Achaiah, the deceased, died in an accident on January 27, 1983, as a result of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle bearing number ADI 3965. The claimants -respondents laid the claim initially under section 110A of the Act. There was delay in laying the claim and the same was refused to be condoned. Thereafter, an application was made by the claimants for "no -fault liability" under section 92A of the Act. The Tribunal below awarded a sum of Rs.15,000 with 12 per cent. interest per annum on that count. Assailing the legality thereof, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) SUB -section (4) of section 92A of the Act postulates that a claim for compensation under sub -section (1) thereof shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disability the claim has been made, nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or disability be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or disablement. Sub -section (1) of section 92A of the Act provides that a claim is independent of any other provisions including section 110A. The quantum of compensation is contemplated by sub -sections (2) and (3) of section 92A of the Act. Therefore, the Legislature was aware of the general claim to be made under section 110A of the Act, and "no -fault liability" was introduced by the Amendment Act 47 of 1982, obviously, with a view to relieve the distress of the claimants for whatever reasons, and to fasten the liability at least to the minimum of Rs.15,000 and Rs.7,500 in case of death or disablement, respectively, even if fault is not established. Thus, it is clear that the liability joint and several. The liability of the insurance company is pursuant to the contract under section 95 of the Act. Therefore, when the liability is fastened disregarding the provisions of section 110A of the Act, the necessary conclusion that could be reached is that, independent of any order that may be passed under section 110A of the Act, the liability under section 92A of the Act can be imposed. But, in a case where there is liability both under section 110A and section 92A of the Act, then, while computing the total compensation payable owing to death or bodily injury to the victim under section 110A, the amount of minimum statutory liability fastened under section 92A has to be excluded and balance has to be paid. But, in other respects, when there is no claim laid or the claim under section 110A is disallowed, irrespective of the contributory negligence, the claimants are entitled to the statutory minimum amount adumbrated under sub -sections (2) and (3) of section 92 of section 92A of the Act. Considered from this perspective, I hold that the Tribunal has not committed any error of law or illegality in awarding the amount towards "no -fault liability" under section 92A(2) of the Act. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.