- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kunjuraman Nair v. Managing Director, Nesamony Transport Corporation Limited
Summary of Opinion — Appeal from Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kuzhithurai
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal arises from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kuzhithurai judgment dated 27-7-1990 dismissing a petition filed under S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
On 9-9-1987 at about 4:45 PM the petitioner and two others were at a bus stop at Methappangodu to Thoduvetti. Route No. 106-B (registration No. TMN. 2915) belonging to the first respondent stopped and passengers were alighting. The petitioner alleges that while he was alighting the driver suddenly moved the bus before any signal was given by the conductor (the second respondent), causing him to fall, strike an electric post and sustain injuries. The petitioner received treatment at the Government Hospital, Kuzhithurai, then at Nagercoil, and later at the Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum. He claims he is unable to conduct his life because of the accident, has a wife and three children, and that his left shoulder "has come down" preventing him from performing his rubber-sheathing duties. He sought Rs. 45,000 as compensation.
The first respondent denied the petitioner's account, contending that the conductor gave a whistle before the bus moved, that two persons ran from the opposite side and attempted to board the bus and then hit the electric post, that the petitioner was not a passenger and did not board the bus, that the bus was not driven rashly or negligently, and that the petitioner did not sustain any deformity. The Tribunal, after enquiry, dismissed the petition. The petitioner appealed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation under S. 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (the "no fault liability" provision) in the circumstances of this case.
- Whether the Tribunal's dismissal of the petition should be interfered with by the appellate court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The driver suddenly moved the bus causing the petitioner to fall and hit the electric post; the petitioner is therefore entitled to compensation.
- Even if negligence of the driver is not established, under the principle of "no fault liability" in S. 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act the petitioner is entitled to compensation for injuries resulting from the accident.
Respondent's Arguments
- The petitioner was not extracting rubber and was not a passenger who boarded normally; the conductor had given a whistle before the bus moved.
- Two persons ran to board the bus and struck the electric post; the petitioner did not board the bus and was not injured as alleged.
- The bus was not driven rashly or negligently; any injury was due to the petitioner's own actions and negligence, so the respondents are not liable.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Nandakumar v. Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation (1992-1 Law Weekly Page 25) | Interpretation of Cl. (4) of S. 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act: S. 92-A was intended to assist claimants who cannot prove negligence of the offending vehicle; it negates the concept of contributory negligence only to the extent that inability to prove the other party's negligence should not defeat a claim; it does not permit a claimant who is clearly at fault to claim compensation. | The court applied this interpretation to conclude that where the injured person is clearly negligent, S. 92-A(4) does not entitle him to compensation; relying on that principle, the court upheld the Tribunal's dismissal of the petition. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined whether S. 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (specifically clause (4)) could operate to award compensation to the petitioner even if he was negligent. The court relied on the High Court's decision in Nandakumar v. Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation, which explained the object and scope of S. 92-A.
Key points from the cited reasoning (as applied by the court):
- S. 92-A was introduced to address difficulties claimants face in proving the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle; it ensures minimum compensation in cases of death or permanent disablement when the claimant cannot prove the other's negligence.
- The expression "Claim for compensation" presupposes that the claimant seeks compensation from another who is at fault; S. 92-A steps in only when the claimant is unable to prove that fault, not when the claimant himself is at fault.
- Clause (4) negates the applicability of contributory negligence for the limited purpose of protecting claimants who cannot prove the other's negligence, but it does not alter the substantive law to allow recovery where the claimant alone is negligent.
Applying those principles to the facts before it, the court concluded that the evidence showed the petitioner had been negligent (attempting to board a moving bus), so S. 92-A could not be invoked to award compensation. Consequently, the Tribunal's dismissal of the petition was held to be well founded.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Implications: The Tribunal's order dismissing the petition for compensation is upheld; the petitioner is not entitled to recover compensation in these circumstances. The court applied established precedent interpreting S. 92-A and did not purport to create new law; the decision enforces the principle that S. 92-A does not permit a claimant who is clearly at fault to recover compensation from another party.
This appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kuzhithurai dated 27-7-1990 dismissing the petition filed under S. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: On 9-9-1987 at about 4.45 PM, the petitioner and two others were waiting in the Bus stop at Methappangodu to Thoduvetti, and at that time Route No. 106-B bearing registration No. TMN. 2915 belonging to the first respondent came and stopped there. Passengers were alighting from the bus. When the petitioner was alighting from the bus, the driver had taken the bus suddenly before any signal was given to him by the second respondent. The petitioner fell down, hit at the electric post nearby and sustained injuries. He was given treatment in the Government Hospital, Kuzhithurai and then sent to Nagercoil for treatment. He had gone to the Medical College Hospital at Trivandrum after discharge and is taking treatment. The petitioner is unable to conduct his life on account of the accident. He has got a wife and three children. The left shoulder of the petitioner has come down and therefore he could not do his duty of rubber sheath. The petitioner prays a sum of Rs. 45,000/- be paid as compensation as per the details in the petition.
3. The first respondent in their counter contends as follows: The petitioner is not an employee extracting rubber. The accident did not take place as alleged by him. After the passengers waiting in the bus stand got into the bus, the conductor gave a whistle and then only the second respondent started to drive the vehicle. Two persons who were standing in front of a shop in the opposite side came running and attempted to get into the bus. At that time, they hit at the electric post and fell down and sustained injuries. The petitioner was not a passenger and he did not get into the bus at all. The bus was not driven rashly or negligently. The petitioner had not sustained any injury much less any deformity. The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.
4. On the above pleadings, after enquiry, the Tribunal has dismissed the petition of the petitioner.
5. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has come forward with this appeal.
6. In this appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that the driver of the bus has suddenly taken the bus which resulted in the petitioner falling down and hitting the electric post and therefore the petitioner is entitled to compensation and even assuming that the evidence has not disclosed any negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, under the principle of ‘no fault liability’ as laid down in S. 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act the petitioner is entitled to compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The evidence of the petitioner and the respondent has shown that the contention of the petitioner that the bus was suddenly taken by the second respondent in the petition before the conductor gave a whistle cannot be true and the petitioner was one of the two who attempted to board the bus while it was moving which resulted in his falling down and hitting the electric post. In other words the evidence before the Court shows that it was only on account of the negligence on the part of the petitioner, he had sustained injuries. Therefore, the respondents in the petition, cannot be made liable for payment of any compensation to the petitioner. The only question remains to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation under S. 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
7. Our High Court has elaborately considered the object and scope of S. 92-A of the Act in the decision reported in Nandakumar v. Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation (1992-1 Law Weekly Page 25) Their Lordships have observed as follows:
“It is true that on a reading of Cl. (4) of S. 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, at the first blush, it appears that even though the petitioner-claimant alone was negligent he could be awarded compensation under the said clause. On a deeper consideration, it is clear that in such a case, no compensation could be awarded to the claimant even under S. 92-A of the Act was introduced only because there be difficulty on the part of the claimants to prove the negligence of the driver of offending vehicle. That is why, even though they are unable to prove the said negligence, S. 92-A of the Act was introduced to say that in case of accident resulting in death or permanent disablement, the minimum compensation prescribed therein must be given despite the fact that the claimant was unable to prove the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.”
“The expression used in Cl. (4) of S. 92-A of the Act is “Claim for compensation”. A person can make a claim for compensation against another only when the other person is at fault and not when he is at fault. May be in view of certain circumstances, he is unable to prove the fault on the part of another person, from whom he claims compensation. Only in such a case. S. 92-A of the Act steps in and says that despite the abovesaid fact of inability to prove the negligence of the other party, he will be entitled to a particular minimum compensation. Social justice is hereby sought to be rendered to him since in view of certain justifiable circumstances, he is unable to prove the negligence on the part of the other person.”
“The only interpretation that could be put on Cl. (4) of S. 92-A of the Act is that even where there is some negligence or default on the part of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement, the claim has been made his claim for compensation from the other party, whose negligence, he is unable to prove, shall not be defeated. I other words, the said Cl. (4) only negates totally the concept of contributory negligence.”
“It must be noted here that only to the above extent, the substantive law has been modified in this regard and not to the extent that even where the deceased or the injured, as the case may be, is negligent and not the other party, the former can claim compensation. Where the former is negligent, there is no scope at all for his claiming any compensation from any other party for his own fault. That is the substantive law. That part of the substantive law has not at all been modified by S. 92-A of the Act. Such a modification cannot be the intention of the legislature since it is totally contrary to the general law of torts and basic principle of law.”
The above decision thus makes it abundantly clear that where the injured person or the deceased is found to have been clearly negligent, no compensation can be awarded under the principle of “No fault liability” compensation as laid down in S. 92-A(4). Since Cl. (4) negatives totally the applicability of concept of contributory negligence. When we consider this case on hand, under the above principle, we are led to the conclusion that the dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner for compensation, by the Tribunal is well founded and does not call for any interference by this Court. In that view, I am of opinion that this appeal is without merits and is liable to be dismissed an accordingly dismissed.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
KA/RR/VCS
Alert