BRIEF NOTES MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 initially provided for the award of compensation on the principle
of "fault" only. The Supreme Court in Manushri Raha v. B.L. Gupta and the Law Commission of
India recommended the introduction of "no fault" liability. The 1939 Act was accordingly
amended by Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1982 incorporating Sections 92-A to 92-E to
provide, for the first time payment of compensation on the principle of "no fault". The 1939 Act,
as amended by the 1982 Amendment Act, was however, later repealed. A new Act "Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988" (Act 59 of 1988) was enacted. It came into force from 14th October, 1988.
In this Act were enacted Sections 140 to 144 (corresponding to earlier Sections 92-A to 92-E.The
Act also provided for award of compensation resulting from an accident arising out of the use of
motor vehicles In case of award of compensation on the principle of "No Fault" (Chapter X
Sections 140 to 144).

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

S. 140 to S. 144 correspond to sections 92A to 92E of the old act and provide for liability
without fault. The Supreme Court in M.K. Kunhimohammed v P.A. Ahmedkutty, AIR 1987
SC2158 suggested that the compensation amount payable under sec 92A of the old act for no
fault liability should be increased. Accordingly Sec 140 provides for payment of Rs 25000 in
case of death and Rs 12000 in case of permanent disablement as compensation when under the
old act the compensation payable was Rs15000 in case of death and Rs 7500 in case of
permanent disablement. Section 140(2) is not retrospective. In an application pending under
section 92(A) of the 1939 Act when the 1988 act came into force, compensation awardable is Rs
15000 for death and not Rs 25000. It was so held in Prakash Chandumal Khatri vs Suresh
Pahilajrai Makhija , AIR 1991 Bombay 365; the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Seela Ratnam,
AIR1997 Kerala 109(FB) there was an accident on 9-8-1982 resulting in a the death of two
persons . in its order dated thus in Oriental F.and G. Ins. Co v. Shantibhai there was an
accident on 9-8-1982 resulting in the death of two persons .In its order dated 5-8-1983 ,the
claims tribunal allowed compensation without going into the question of negligence of the driver
or the owner of the vehicle, under section 92-A of the(1939) Act which came into the force on 1-
10-1982, i.e, after the date of the accident. The Bombay High Court affirmed the decision and
observed:
 “….Section 92-A (1993 Act) does not expressly restrict its application to future cases and
it being a piece of welfare legislation has to be interpreted liberally….I am therefore, of the
considered view that….S. 92-A is to be applied to all pending cases, irrespective of the date on
which the accident occurred, the fact that the Amendment Act postulates that the amendments
will come into force on the dates notified in the Government Gazette, being of no consequence.
Similarly, the circumstances that S. 92-A is an entirely new provision in no manner negatives the
views taken by me.”
But contrary view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Rajasthan State Road Corp. v.
Ogam, AIR 1992 Raj 61. The amendment by Act 54 of 1994 raising the amount of compensation
from Rs 25000 to Rs 50000 in case of death has not been held applicable to an accident taking
place before the amendment. United India Insurance Ltd. V. Balubhai Limjibhai Patel, AIR 1997
Guj 78. Contrary view has been taken by the Himachal Pradesh High Court : Manjit Singh v.
Rosan Singh, AIR 1997 HP 21. The insurance company in an enquiry for the liability under
section 140 cannot raise defences under section 149. And the Tribunal can direct the insurance
company to pay the amount subject to appropriate direction for reimbursement from the owners
if finally it is not found liable.

IMPORTANT SECTIONS

Section 3: It is an offence to drive a vehicle without Driving Licence.

Section 4: Age limit for obtaining driving licence -

Two Wheelers below 50 CC -16 years

Other Motor Vehicles - 18 years

Transport Vehicle - 20 years

Section 5: Owner not to allow any person to drive the vehicle without Driving Licence ( D.L ).
Example - If son/daughter is driving a vehicle owned by parent without D.L, parent can be
prosecuted, though the parent may not be present at the time of the offence.

Section 19: The Regional Transport Officer (RTO) can disqualify persons from holding driving
licence or revoke the same if the person

- is a habitual criminal or habitual drunkard

- is a habitual addict to any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance within the meaning of the
Narcotic Drugsand Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (61 of 1985)

- is using or has used a motor vehicle in the commission of a cognizable offence

- has by his previous conduct as driver of a motor vehicle shown that his driving is likely to be
attended with danger to the public

- has committed any such act which is likely to cause nuisance or danger to the public.

Section 20: On conviction of an offence under Motor Vehicles Act or an offence in the
commission of which a motor vehicle was used, the Court can disqualify the person concerned
from holding driving licence apart from imposing any other punishment.

For the following offences, disqualification is mandatory -

i) not stopping the vehicle when required to do so by any Police Officer not below the rank of
Police Sub-Inspector in uniform if the vehicle is involved in a road accident (Section 132)

ii) not shifting the victim of the accident in which his or her vehicle is involved to the nearest
Hospital/ Medical Practitioner (Section 134)

iii) not giving, on demand by a Police Officer, any information required by him (Section 134)

iv) not reporting the occurrence of accident to insurer (Section 134)

v) driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs (Section 185)

vi) driving dangerously (Section 184)

vii) racing and trials of speed (Section 189)

viii) using vehicle without registration (Section 192)

Section 21: If a person already convicted once for dangerous driving under Section 184, again
indulges in dangerous driving causing death or grievous hurt and if a case is registered for the
second offence, the driving licence of the person is automatically suspended for a maximum
period of 6 months or till disposal of the case in the Court.
Section 22: i) If a person is convicted for second time for dangerous driving under Section 184,
the Court can cancel the driving licence

ii) If a person is convicted for the second time for drunken driving under Section 185, the Court
shall cancel the driving licence of the person concerned

Section 39: No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner shall cause or permit any
vehicle to be driven without proper registration and display of the registration mark. If a vehicle
is plying without proper registration, owner can be prosecuted though he/she may not be present
at the time of offence.

Section 49: The change of address recorded in the Registration Certificate shall be reported
within 30 days of any such change.

Section 50: Transfer of ownership should be reported within 14 days of the transfer if the vehicle
is sold within the State and 45 days if the vehicle is sold outside the State.

Section 51: Ownership of a motor vehicle held under the hire purchase or lease or hypothecation
agreement cannot be transferred without a written consent of the person to whom the vehicle is
hypothecated.

Section 52: No owner of a vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the
Certificate of Registration are no longer accurate. Such alteration can be made only with notice
and prior approval of the Regional Transport Officer.

Section 53: If a vehicle is not in a fit condition to be used on the public road or is being used for
hire without valid permit, the registration certificate can be suspended by the Regional Transport
Officer.

Section 115: In the interest of public safety or convenience or because of the nature of any road
or bridge, movement of certain types of vehicles can be restricted or prohibited. If the period of
restriction is less than one month, no notification is necessary.

Section 119: Every driver shall drive the vehicle in conformity with the traffic sign boards and
shall comply with all the directions given to him by any Police Officer for the time being
engaged in the regulation of traffic.
Section 121: Signaling by the driver regarding his intentions to stop or take a left or right turn is
mandatory. If he does not do so, the driver can be prosecuted.

Section 122: Leaving a vehicle at rest on any public place in such a way as to cause or likely to
cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other road users is an offence. Such
vehicles can be towed away by Police and charged for towing as well as this offence.

Section 127: i) If a vehicle is left unattended on a public place for more than 10 hours or found
parked in a No Parking Zone, it can be ordered to be towed away by a jurisdictional Police
Officer in uniform

ii) If a vehicle is parked unattended in such a manner as to create a traffic hazard, it can be
immediately removed by towing as ordered by any jurisdictional Police Officer

iii) The charges of towing away have to be paid by the owner besides any other penalty

Section 128: Carrying more than one pillion rider on a two-wheeler is an offence.

Section 129: It is mandatory to wear a helmet of ISI standard while riding a motor cycle in
public place. However, the State Government can make rules as it may think fit. There are
decided cases in the Courts that any act aimed at doing good is not violative of any fundamental
right.

Section 130: The driver of a motor vehicle in any public place shall, on demand by any Police
Officer in uniform, produce his Driving Licence, Registration Certificate, Insurance Certificate,
Fitness Certificate and the Permit can be demanded in this manner by Officers of Motor Vehicles
Department only.

Section 133: It is the duty of the owner of a Motor Vehicle which is involved in any offence to
give all information regarding the name and address of and the licence held by the driver or the
conductor on demand by any Police Officer.

Section 136: All vehicles involved in road accidents have to be inspected by the authorised
Officers of Motor Vehicles Department.
Section 140: Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from a road
accident, the owner of the vehicle involved shall be liable to pay compensation in respect of such
death or disablement irrespective of his/her fault. The compensation for death shall be Rs.
50,000/- and for permanent disablement Rs. 25,000/-.

In such claims, the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or
permanent disablement was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the
vehicle involved. The claim 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. Besides the owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company is also liable under this section.

Section 146: No vehicle shall be used on the road without proper Insurance Certificate. The
responsibility lies with the owner of the vehicle.

Section 158: Any person driving a motor vehicle in any public place, shall, on being required by
a Police Officer in uniform, produce:

1. certificate of Insurance

2. certificate of registration

3. driving licence

4. in case of transport vehicles, also the certificate of fitness and the permit

Section 160: For the purpose of claiming compensation in a road accident, information regarding
the vehicle involved, the driver, injured, property damaged can be obtained from the Police
Officer incharge of the concerned Police Station on payment of the prescribed fee.

Section 161: In respect of death of any person resulting from a hit and run road accident, a
compensation of Rs. 25,000/- is paid. In respect of grievous hurt, the compensation to be paid is
Rs. 12,500/-. This compensation is to be paid by the District Magistrate concerned.

Section 179: Disobedience to orders of the competent authority, obstruction to discharge of

official duty or refusal of information to the authority concerned can result in fine upto Rs. 500/-.
Section 180: If a owner permits any unauthorised person to drive the vehicle without driving
licence, the owner is liable for imprisonment upto 3 months or fine upto Rs. 1,000/- or both.

Section 181: Driving without valid and proper driving licence can result in imprisonment upto 3
months or fine upto Rs. 500/- or both

Section 182: If a person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence
either drives a motor vehicle or applies for or obtains a driving licence with-holding the
information regarding disqualification, the person can be imprisoned upto 3 months or punished
with fine upto Rs. 500/- or with both.

Section 182(a): Whoever alters the construction of the vehicle without prior approval of the
competent authority shall be punishable with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the first offence and with a
fine of Rs. 5,000/- for any subsequent offence.

Section 183: i) If a driver of a motor vehicle contravenes the speed limit, he/she shall be
punishable with fine upto Rs. 400/- for the first offence and Rs. 500/- for the subsequent offence.

ii) If the owner causes the driver to contravene the speed limit, he/she shall be punishable with
fine upto Rs. 300/- for the first offence and Rs. 500/- for subsequent offence.

Section 184: Whoever drives a motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the
public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case including nature, condition and use of
the place where the vehicle is driven and the amount of traffic which actually is at the time or
which might reasonably be expected to be in the place, shall be punishable for the first offence
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to
one thousand rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence if committed within three years
of the commission of a previous similar offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to two years or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both. The driver can
be arrested on the spot.

Section 185: Punishment for drunken driving is imprisonment upto 2 years or fine upto Rs.
3,000/- or both. The driver can be arrested on the spot.
Section 186: If a person drives a vehicle when mentally or physically unfit to drive, he/she shall
be punishable for the first offence with fine upto Rs. 200/- and Rs. 500/- for subsequent offence.

Section 187: If a driver or a owner fails to report involvement of his/her vehicle in an accident
and give the required information to the Police Officer concerned, he/she shall be punishable
with imprisonment upto 3 months or fine upto Rs. 500/- or both in addition to the punishment for
the accident, in case convicted. For the subsequent offence under this section, the imprisonment
can be upto 6 months and fine amount upto Rs. 1,000/-

Section 188: Whoever abets the commission of offence under Section 184, 185 and 186 shall be
punishable for the same punishment as the accused himself / herself.

Section 189: Whoever without the written consent of the State Government permits or takes part
in a race or trial of speed of any kind between motor vehicles in any public place shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with a fine which
may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.

Section 190: Punishment for violation of the standards prescribed in relation to road safety,
control of noise and air pollution is fine amount upto Rs.1000/- for the first offence and Rs.
2000/- for the subsequent offence.

Section 192: Using a vehicle without registration can result in minimum fine amount of Rs.
2000/- and maximum upto Rs. 5000/-. For subsequent offence, the fine amount can be upto Rs.
10,000/- with a minimum of Rs. 5000/.

The punishment is not applicable for vehicles used in an emergency for the conveyance of
persons suffering from sickness or injuries or for the transportation of food or material to relieve
distress or of medical supplies for a like purpose.

Section 192(a): Using vehicle in contravention of permit condition can result in fine upto Rs.
5000/- but not less than Rs. 2000/- for the first offence and imprisonment upto 1 year but not less
than 3 months or with fine amount upto Rs. 10,000/- but not less than Rs. 5000/- or both for the
subsequent offence.
Section 194: Driving vehicle exceeding permissible weight can result with a punishment of Rs.
2000/- and an additional amount of Rs. 1,000/- per tonne of excess load together with the
liability to pay charges of off-loading the excess load.

Section 196: Driving uninsured vehicle can result in punishment in imprisonment upto 3 months
or fine upto Rs. 1000/- or both.

Section 197: Whoever takes or drives away any motor vehicle without having either the consent
of the owner thereof or other lawful authority shall be punishable with imprisonment which may
extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.

Section 200: The offence under the following sections can be compounded by the Police
Officers:

Sections 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 189, 190, 191, 192, 194, 196 or 198.

Section 201: Whoever keeps a disabled vehicle on any public place in such a manner so as to
cause impediment to the free flow of traffic, shall be liable for penalty upto to fifty rupees per
hour so long as it remains in that position.

Section 202: i) A Police Officer in uniform may arrest without warrant any person who in his
presence commits an offence punishable under Section 184 (dangerous driving) or Section 185
(drunken driving) or Section 197 (taking vehicle without authority).

ii) A Police Officer in uniform may arrest without warrant any person who has committed an
offence under this Act, if such person refuses to give his name and address.

Section 203: If a person required by a Police Officer to provide a specimen of breath for a breath
test, refuses or fails to do so and the Police Officer has reasonable cause to suspect him of having
alcohol in his blood, the Police Officer may arrest him without warrant except while he is at a
hospital as an indoor patient.

Section 206: 1) Any Police Officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State
Government may if he has reason to believe that any identification mark carried on a motor
vehicle or any licence, permit, certificate of registration, certificate of insurance or other
document produced to him by the driver or person in charge of a motor vehicle is a false
document within the meaning of Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code, seize the mark or
document and call upon the driver or owner of the vehicle to account for his possession of or the
presence in the vehicle of such mark or document.

2) Any Police Officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if
he has reason to believe that the driver of a motor vehicle who is charged with any offence under
this Act may abscond or otherwise avoid the service of a summons, seize any licence held by
such driver and forward it to the Court.

3) A Police Officer or other person seizing a licence under sub-section (2) shall give to the
person surrendering the licence a temporary acknowledgement therefore and such
acknowledgement shall authorise the holder to drive until the licence has been returned to him or
until such date as may be specified by the Police Officer or other person in the
acknowledgement, whichever is earlier.

Section 207: Any Police Officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State
Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in
contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or without the permit
required by sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit
relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be
used, seize and detain the vehicle, in the prescribed manner and for this purpose, take or cause to
be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle.

Application of Principle of No Fault Liability

1. Accident - If a claim arises under both the Acts, there is no doubt that the liability of the
insurer is wider and not restricted to cases of insolvency etc. mentioned in Section 14 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. When a claimant's case arises under both Acts, but he files
a claim before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the
Commissioner can, because of Section 110-AA read with Section 95(5) make the Insurer liable
even the in situations not covered by Section 14 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

2. Award of compensation - Where the vehicle involved in accident was insured by two
different insurer's, therefore, award of compensation against two sets of insurers to the extent of
50% each is liable to be sustained.
Where defences were available to the insurance company but it was not exempted under this
circumstance, it was held that summary proceeding under Section 140 should be in existence.

If the injury is simple fracture only, person receiving such injury would not be entitled to
compensation.

3. Compensation for no fault liability - The Claims Tribunal has power to allow interest on
compensation awarded in view of Section 140 of Act.Compensation for no fault liability
cannot be denied to claimant who became permanently disabled in an accident.

The Tribunal is not justified in awarding compensation in excess of, statutory amount in
case of a fatal accident.
4. Defences available to insurer - Claims Tribunal can direct insurer to make payment of
interim award under no fault liability even without deciding the validity of driving licence of
driver of offending vehicle.

Defence under Section 149(2) of Act are available to insurer against a claim under no fault
liability under Section 140 of the Act.

5. Determination of quantum of compensation on no fault liability principle - An award of

compensation for no fault liability in order to be enforceable depends upon making an
independent claim on that ground and the Tribunal is required to dispose of that claim by passing
a separate award even before the normal compensation is determined. Therefore, the crucial date
of determining the quantum of compensation to be awarded as "no fault" liability is the date on
which the Tribunal or the Court is required to award compensation for no fault liability though
the event for which compensation is to be measured has taken on an antecedent date.

The provisions of Section 92-A of old Act and Section 140 of 1988 Act are beneficial legislation
provided for an immediate aid to the claimant on account of death or permanent disablement in
an accident. No new right or liability under Section 140 has been created and merely the
quantum of compensation to be awarded by the Court on no fault principle has been enhanced.
By enacting Section 144, the Legislature further made its intention clear that after the
commencement of the Act, provisions of Chapter X will hold the field for governing the award
of compensation by the Courts on the basis of no fault liability principle, Section 144 clearly
spelt out a contrary intention. Viewed from this angle, provisions of Section 6 of the General
Clauses Act to not impede grant of enhanced compensation under the provisions of Section 140
even in case where accident has occurred prior to the commencement of the New Act.

Section 140(l) of the Motor vehicles Act provides that when 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 vel-dcles shall,
jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in
accordance'with the provisions of the section. The amount of compensation is specified in sub-
section (2) of Section 140. Sub-section (3) provides that in any claim for compensation under
sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish thatthe 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. Sirnflarly, under sub- section (4) a claim for compensation under sub-section (1)
shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of
whose death of permanent disablement the claim has been made.

The provisions of Section 140 have been interpreted in several decided cases. In New India
Assurance Coinpany Ltd. v. Minguel Lourenco Correia and others, this Court while interpreting
the corresponding provisions of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, held that the
questions which arise before the Court are whether (a) a vehicle had been involved in an
accident; (b) a person died or sustained permanent disablement as a result of such accident; and
(c) with whom the vehicle was insured. This is so, it was held, because irrespective of any fault,
the legal representatives of the dead person or the person who had suffered a permanent
c4sablement are to be given quick and effective temporary relief. While the Insurance Company
may raise such defences as are available in law, those defences have to be dealt with in the
course of the proceedings for compensation under Section 110 of the erstwhile Act. In Nezv
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Savitribai Tukaram Londhe, 1997 (1) Mh Q 315: 1997 (2) TAC 219
(Bom).

6. Dishonour of cheque - In regard of dishonour of a cheque, it was held that insurance

company was liable for no fault liability because relevant circum§tances are shown in the fact..

7. Injury - Where a person was injured badly and also suffered the permanent disablement,
under this circumstance it was held that claimants are entitled to get compensation.

8. Interim award - Tribunal may direct the insurance company to indemnify the owner only
when the relevant conditions are in existence, but owner of vehicle should establish his defence
after evidence.

Where an order was passed under Section 140, it was held that such type of order is an award
and appeal against it is maintainable.

In this case it was held that Tribunal is under its legal obligation, means suo inotu to perform his
activities, and application send to this purpose is valid.To award interim compensation,
requirement under no fault liability are -

(i) some proof about the accident;(ii) involvement of the vehicle in accident;
(iii) ownership of vehicle.

Grant of interim award by Tribunal under no fault liability to heirs of deceased cannot be
directed to be deposited in a Bank for a fixed period of 10 years in the name of 3 claimants.

Where there was prima facie evidence regarding involvement of Mail Van in an accident causing
death of a person then the claimants are entitled to interim award under no fault liability

9. Interim compensation - Considering the circumstances regarding various liabilities of

claimant, award of interim compensation by Tribunal directed to be disbursed to claimant instead
of depositing the same in Bank.

Though the death of deceased was not caused by any motor accident, the claim petition before
Claims Tribunal is maintainable as the insurer is liable to pay interim compensation.

When the deceased sustained bullet injuries and died in an accident arising out of use of motor
vehicle, then Tribunal rightly passed interim award.

Revision filed by insurer against order of Tribunal rejecting review application against award of
interim compensation by Tribunal not maintainable.

10. Interim relief - In this case it was held that granting the interim award Tribunal is required
to record primafacie satisfaction, risk involved and Tribunal should also consider any breach of
material condition of the policy of insurance.

11. Liability of insurer - Failure of insurer to establish breach of conditions of policy wilfully
makes them liable to pay compensation.

Where claim was made under Section 163-A and it was explained in enlarged form under this
circumstance, it was held that general damages should be awarded.

The claimant, claiming compensation need not establish absence of negligence.

Where the student passengers in a lorry accident died, and owner of vehicle breached the terms
and conditions of policy then even on no fault liability, insurer is not liable for which owner
alone is liable for.
Where the liability, other than statutory liability is not covered by insurance policy, the liability
under Section 92-A cannot be saddled on insurer.

The insurer would be liable to pay interim compensation under no fault liability along with fault
liability.
Where negligence of truck driver not established and claim under fault liability was dismissed
then insurer is liable under no fault liability.
Since the risk of insured is not covered by policy, therefore, insurer is liable to compensate the
insured towards the risk of third party

Where the Tribunal awarded interim award to widow of deceased, owner insured under no fault
liability, then insurer cannot raise defence that insured is not covered by policy at the time of
passing of interim award.

12. Negligency of victim - While awarding compensation by Tribunal, the Tribunal has no job,
to see the negligency of victim.

13. No fault liability - Order, rejecting claim for compensation by legal representatives of
deceased on the ground that accident took place due to fault of driver, is not sustainable.

When the claim of compensation is based on no fault liability then negligence of any of parties,
not required to be pleaded.

Even in absence of any legal representatives of both deceased, owner and driver of vehicle, the
insurer cannot deny its liability.
When the ownership and involvement of vehicle in an accident proved on the basis of materials
available on record which resulted in death of deceased then compensation awarded requires no
interference.

Where Rs. 50,000/- awarded as compensation under no fault liability to claimants then direction
of Tribunal for investing 90% in fixed deposit not sustainable.
When the claim of compensation is based on no fault liability then negligence of any of parties,
not required to be pleaded.

Even in absence of any legal representatives of both deceased, owner and driver of vehicle, the
insurer cannot deny its liability.
When the ownership and involvement of vehicle in an accident proved on the basis of materials
available on record which resulted in death of deceased then compensation awarded requires no
interference.

Where Rs. 50,000/- awarded as compensation under no fault liability to claimants then direction
of Tribunal for investing 90% in fixed deposit not sustainable.

Where death of two persons travelling in a bus was accidental out of use of motor vehicle then
claimants are entitled to no fault liability compensation.A victim of an accident occurred, arising
out of use of motor vehicle entitled to compensation unless any of exceptions would apply.

The claimants are entitled to receive Rs. 50,000/- as interim award under no fault liability for
death of deceased driver even due to his own negligence.

Where the factum of accident causing death admitted due there was no dispute regarding legal
representive then interim award, awarded cannot ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit.

Failure of owner of offending vehicle to prove that he had not violated terms and conditions of
policy, makes him also liable.

Even under no fault enquiry, insurance company cannot be saddled with the amount of
compensation when risk to third party is not covered being pillion rider.

The expression 'third party' does not cover the pillion rider of the motor vehicle. The risk of
pillion rider third party is not covered under the policy of Insurance and, therefore, even under
No fault liability the insurance company cannot be saddled with the amount of compensation to
be paid to the heirs of the deceased. The Division Bench of this court has held in case of New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Babasaheb Anna Mali and others, that a pillion rider on a motor
cycle, which is covered under third party insurance policy, is not a third party and, therefore,
insurer cannot be saddled with no fault liability in respect of the pillion rider.
This court has taken a view in New India Assiirance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Savitribai Titkarani Londhe
and others, (supra) that if, on face of insurance policy, the insurance company is not liable then,
even under Section 92-A of the MX Act, 1939, insurance company cannot be fastened with the
liability. Similar view is taken in New India Assitrance Co. Ltd. v. Gajanan Rambhau Mohite
and another, (supra).

The Supreme Court has held in New India Assitrance Co. Ltd. v. Mandar Madhav Tainbe and
others, referred supra, that learners driving licence is not an valid licence.

14. Object of - The object of proceedings under Section 92-A is to enable expeditious disposal
of a claim petition by Tribunal.

15. Permanent disablement - Where doctor opined that claimant suffered nnoo fracture
reported but he had sustained disablement permanently. Therefore, he is entitled to get
reasonable relief.

The power of limb was impaired by 60%, prima facie it was made out that claimant had suffered
permanent disability. He was, therefore, entitled to claim interim compensation.

16. Retrospective application - When in claims for two deaths in accident, Section 140 of Act is
retrospectively applicable then claimants is entitled to Rs. 15,000/- for each death as the fixed
minimum liability.

17. Scope - From reading the provision of Sections 140,141,142,143 and 144 it is clear that right
to claim compensation under Section 144 is in addition to other rights under the Act.

18. Summary proceeding - Where defences available to the insurance company and insurance
company was not exempted from it's liability, under this circumstance it was held that this
question is not to be considered in summary proceeding under Section 140.
19. Use of motor vehicle - When a truck dashed to almost stand still jeep with even running
engine there it is covered under expression use of motor vehicle.