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.) 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.) THE Supreme Court in Shivaji Davanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More (AIR 1991 SC 1769) enunciated the principle of law that no fault provision, as is propounded in section 92 -A of the Act of 1939, corresponding to section 140 of the Act, is in the nature as of a measure of social justice a beneficial legislation enacted with a view to confer the benefit of expeditious statutory payment of fixed amount by way of compensation to the victims of an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle on the basis of no fault liability. The underlying object of the provision would be defeated if the Claims Tribunal is required to hold a regular trial in the same manner as for adjudicating a claim petition under section 110 -A of Act of 1939 corresponding section 166 of the Act, but before ordering compensation under this provision the Tribunal has to satisfy itself that the requirements of the section are satisfied.