SAURABH KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. HUKUM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') arises out of an order passed on 6th December, 1994, in Claim Case No. 71/92, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hoshangabad, whereby the application under Section 140 of the Act, for grant of quantified fixed amount under Section 140 of the Act for the fracture of Right 4th and 5th metacarpals received by the appellant in accident by the use of truck No. MP 04-F/8405 was dismissed holding that appellant has not suffered permanent disability as defined in Section 142 of the Act.

(2.) The appeal came up for hearing before R. P. Awasthy, J. who did not concur with the view taken by D. M. Dharmadhikari, J. in Mahendra Prasad Mishra v. Mohammad Sabbir, 1994 ACJ 942, that fracture of bones in a motor accident can be called "privation of any member or joint". Awasthi, J. was of the opinion that the words "privation of any member or joint" appearing in clause (a) of Section 142 means loss of any member or joint, therefore, referred the case before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a bench of two Judges for deciding the following question :

(3.) Section 140 of Chapter X of the Act corresponding provisions in Sections 92-A to 92-E of Chapter VII-A of the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'Act of 1939') deal with liability without fault in certain cases. The underlying idea behind Section 140 of the Act corresponding provision in Section 92-A in Act of 1939 is that where the 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 an amount of Rs. 50,000.00 and in respect of permanent disablement a fixed sum of Rs. 25,000 by way of immediate relief without proof of negligence in an application filed for compensation under Section 166 of the Act. Section 144 of the Act, corresponding provision. S. 92-E in Act of 1939, provides that the provisions contained in Chapter X of the Act corresponding Chapter VII-A of Act 1939, shall have overriding effect, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of the Act or of any other law for the time being in force. Chapter X of the Act is a clear departure from the usual common law principle that a claimant should establish negligence on the part of the owner or driver of the motor vehicle before claiming any compensation for the death or permanent disablement caused on account of a motor vehicle accident. See Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Raman Bhai Prabhat Bhai, AIR 1987 SC 1690; K. Nandkumar v. Managing Director, Thonthal Periyar Transport Corporation, (1996) 2 SCC 736 : (AIR 1996 SC 1217).