Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"92A. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault : --(1) 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, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the prpvi-sions 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 fifteen 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 seven thousand five hundred 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 subsection (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 be 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."

6. It is seen from the aforementioned provisions that the statute imposes a liability on the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation in respect of death or disablement resulting from an accident. Sub-section (2) provides the quantum namely, Rs. 15,000/- in respect of death and Rs. 7,500/- in respect of a permanent disablement. Sub-section (3) absolves the claimant from proving that the death was due to any wrongful act or fault on the part of the owner or owners or of any other person. Sub-section (4) directs that no claim shall be defeated by reason of any wrongful act or default on the part of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made. Thus the long and short of these provisions is that where a death or disablement had occurred due to the use of the motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle shall pay the compensation specified therein. Whether fault or no fault on their side a statutory liability is now imposed. Prior to the amendment, it was a tortious liability. The object of this provision seems to be to provide solatium to persons, who are affected by the untimely death or permanent disablement of the victim. It is a measure of social justice. In the case of accidents, it is common knowledge that it is difficult to secure evidence. In the nature of events, it is bound to happen. The accident takes place somewhere on the road or at far of place and the dependants of the victim would come to know only much later. It is difficult to secure adequate proof regarding the negligence of the owner or the driver. There are many cases of hit and run and the persons affected may not be able to secure adequate proof. Taking all these circumstances into account, the Parliament has enacted Section 92A. A reference to the objects and reasons for this amendment will make the position clear. They are as follows :--

Thus it is seen that the provision was introduced as a welfare measure to benefit the persons who are victims of road accident. There is absolutely no reason why the provision should be given a restricted application by confining it to cases where the accidents take place subsequent to the introduction of the provision. Every beneficial measure must be applied liberally and Section 92 A which is one such must be held to apply to pending proceedings.

7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the provision cannot be given any retrospective operation as it takes away vested rights. We are unble to appreciate this contention. There is no question of any vested right here. Prior to the amendment, the action was in tort and therefore, it was necessary to prove negligence on the part of the person, who. was responsible for the accident. Now Section 92A(3) dispenses with proof of negligence on the part of the victim or the claimants. No doubt, a law is ordinarily prospective. But its retrospectivity may be expressly provided or it may flow by necessary implication. The amendment was enacted with the object of giving a quick and effective relief to the victim or the dependants and it would appear from the language of Section 92A that the Legislature intended to extend such benefit to all persons who had been affected by the accident resulting in death or permanent disablement.