JUDGMENT
Ratnam, J.
1. This appeal, at the instance of the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company, is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Additional Subordinate Judge), Madurai, in M.C.O.P. No. 14 of 1983. The respondents herein are the brother and sister respectively of one Francis Gabriel. According to the case of the respondents, on 11.11.1982 at about 5 p.m. Francis Gabriel was riding his bicycle slowly and observing the rules of the road from east to west on the left side of Madurai…Dindigul Road near Visalakshi Mills at Vilangudi and his friend one Thavamani was seated on the carrier of the cycle. At that time, the bus belonging to the first Appellant bearing registration No. TNA 1076, which was also proceeding from east to west, was driven rashly and negligently by its driver Murugan with out sounding the horn and contrary to the road regulations and dashed against Francis Gabriel, who sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to them on the spot. Alleging that the accident resulting in the death of Francis Gabriel was only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the first appellant by its driver, the respondents herein stated that taking into account the age of the deceased and his earnings they are entitled to be paid compensation in a sum of Rs. 40,000. Referring to the amendments made to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1982 (No. 47 of 1982), the respondents claimed that the appellants were liable to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000 as first mentioned compensation in accordance with Sections 92-A and 92-B of the Act and further stated that to secure this compensation, they need not plead or establish any wrongful act on the part of the driver or the owner of the vehicle, as the right to claim such compensation under Section 92-A of the Act is in addition to the other right to claim compensation referred to as the right on the principle of fault. Even in the paragraph relating to the reliefs prayed for, the respondents stated that the appellants should be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000 immediately and should also be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 40,000 inclusive of the sum of Rs. 15,000 referred to as the first mentioned claim therein.
2. In the counter filed by the appellants, they resisted the claim for compensation made by the respondents on the ground that Francis Gabriel suddenly dar.ted across the road and in spite of the application of the brakes by the driver of the bus, the accident could not be averted and the cycle driven by Francis Gabriel hit against the bus, as a result ofwhich he lost his lifeandlheaccident was, therefore, attributable only to the negligence pf the deceased. The appellants also disputed the entitlement of the respondents to the compensation amount of Rs. 40,000 claimed by them on the ground that it was excessive and on the high side.
3. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the respondents, Exs. P-1 to P-4 were filed and the first respondent and another gave evidence as P.Ws. 1 and 2, while, on behalf of the appellants, the driver of the bus alone was examined as R.W. 1. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident took place only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the first appellant by its driver R.W. 1. Considering the age of the deceased and also his earnings, the Tribunal determined the compensation payable to the respondents in a sum of Rs. 15,300 comprising of Rs. 14,000 towards loss; of expectation of life and earnings, Rs. 1,000 towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 300 towards funeral expenses. Having thus determined the compensation payable to the respondents, the Tribunal proceeded to award compensation under Section 92-A of the Act in a sum of Rs. 15,000 on the footing that the accident had taken place on 11.11.1982, after the coming into force of Section 92-A of the Act with effect from 1.10.1982 and finally determined the total compensation payable to the respondents at Rs. 30,300, by totalling up Rs. 15,300 and Rs. 15,000 respectively and an award was passed accordingly directing the appellants herein to pay to the respondents Rs. 30,300 with interest at 6% per annum, if the amount of compensation was not deposited by.the appellants within two months from the date of the award, It is the correctness of this that is questioned by the appellants in this appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants, referring to Sections 92A and 92B of the Act and in particular to Section 92-B(3), contended that the Tribunal had failed to give effect to Section 92-B(3), (a) of the Act and had proceeded to award compensation on the principle of no fault and also on the basis of fault and had merely added up the two amounts of compensation and this runs counter to Section 92-B(3), (a) of the Act and at best, Tribunal could have passed an award only for a sum of Rs. 15,300 and, therefore, the award of the Tribunal required modification. Reliance was also placed in this connection upon the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ind Kaur 1986 A.C.J. 194. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents made a feeble attempt to sustain the award of the Tribunal on its own reasoning, besides submitting that the quantum of compensation awarded could be justified under the several heads of claim made by the respondents.
5. Before proceeding to consider the contention raised by learned Counsel for the appellants, it would be necessary to refer to Section 92-A, 92-B and 92-E of the Act, which were introduced by Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1982 (47 of 1982). These sections run as follows:
92A. (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, 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 or disablement in accordance with the provisions 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 ambunt 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 Sub-Section (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 the 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.
92-B. (1) The right to claim compensation under Section 92-A in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person shall be in addition to any other right (hereafter in this section referred to as the right on the principle of fault) to claim compensation in respect thereof under any other provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force.
(2) A claim for compensation under Section 92-A in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person shall be disposed of as cxpedi-tibuslyas possible and where compensation is claimed in respect of such death or permanent disablement under Section 92-Aand also in pursuance of any right on the principle of fault, the claim for compensation under Section 92-A shall be disposed of as aforesaid in the first place.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), where in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, the person liable to pay compensation under Section 92-A is also liable to pay compensation in accordance with the right on the principle of fault, the person so liable shall pay the first-mentioned compensation and-
(a) If the amount of the first mentioned compensation is less than the amount of second-mentioned compensation, he shall be liable to pay (in addition to the first-mentioned compensation) only so much of the second mentioned compensation as is equal to the amount by which it exceeds the first-mentioned compensation:
(b) If the amount of the first-mentioned compensation is equal to or less than the amount of the second-mentioned compensation, he shall not be liable to pay the second-mentioned compensation.
92-E. The provisions of this Chapter shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force.
Under Section 1(2) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1982 (47 of 1982), the amended provisions shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act. By a notification dated 15.9.1982 of Ministry of Shipping and Transport (Transport Wing) S.O. 669(E) published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3(ii) dated 15.9.1982, the 1st day of October, 1982 was appointed as the date on which the provisions of Sections 2 to 7, Sections 10 to 27 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1982 (47 of l982) shall come into force. Sections 92-A, 92-B and 92-E of the Act were introduced under Chapter VII-A of the Act by Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1982 (47 of 1982) and in view of the notification referred to earlier, Sections 92-A, 92-B and 92-E of the Act became operative and applicable with effect from 1.10.1982. The accident in this case took place on 11.11.1982 and there can, therefore, be no dispute that Sections 92-A, 92-B and 92-E of the Act would stand attracted to this case. Section 92-E of the Act declares the overriding effect of the provisions under Chapter VII-A of the Act. Section 92-A of the Act fastens liability for payment of compensation jointly and severally upon the owner or owners of vehicles in respect of death or disablement resulting from an accident arising out of the use of a Motor Vehicle or Motor Vehicles and such liability is declared to be in accordance with the provisions of Section 92-A(1) of the Act. However, Section 92-A(2), referring to Section 92-A(1) of the Act, fixes the quantum of compensation in a sum of Rs. 15,000 in respect of death and Rs. 7,500 for permanent disablement. Under Section 92-A(3) of the Act, it is provided that it is unnecessary for the claimant to plead and prove that death or disablement in respect of which the claim had been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners or of any other person. Under Section 92-A(4) of the Act, it is provided that the claim for compensation under Section 92-A(1) of the Act shall not be defeated by any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or disablement the claim is made and the quantum of compensation recover-able should also be not reduced on the ground that the dead person or the permanently disabled person was also responsible for the death or disablement, as the case may be. It is thus seen that under Section 92-A(1) to (4) of the Act, in cases of death or permanent disablement, arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the dependents of the dead person or the injured person, as the case may be, are entitled to recover from the owner or owners of the vehicles, compensation in a sum of Rs. 15,000 in respect of death and Rs. 7,500 in cases of permanent disablement, without the need to establish any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicles and the compensation thus awardable is also not in. any manner affected cither by wrongful act, neglect or default of the dead person or the person permanently disabled or even on the basis §f the share of responsibility of the dead of injured person for such death or permanent disablement. In other words, the purport of Section 92-A(1) to (4) is that without proof of any negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle or of any other person the dependants of a dead person or an injured person, will be entitled to recover compensation of Rs. 15,000 or Rs. 7,500, as the case may be, without reference to any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the dead person or the person disabled and no reduction can also be made in the quantum of compensation awardable on the ground of the responsibility of the deceased person or the person injured, for the death or disablement. This clearly is a departure from the common law concept that a claimant should establish negligence on the part of the owner or the driver of the vehicle before claiming compensation for death or permanent disablement. However, under Section 92-B(1) of the Act, the right to claim compensation under Section 92-A of the Act has been declared to be in addition to any other right, such right having been referred to in the section as the right on the principle of fault, to claim compensation in respect of death or disablement Under any other provision of the Act. Thus, Section 92-B(1) of the Act recognises that the right to claim compensation under Section 92-A of the Act is really in the nature of an additional right, i.e., in addition to the right to claim compensation under other provisions of the Act. Further, under Section 92-B(2) of the Act, it has been provided that a claim for compensation under Section 92-A of the Act either in respect of death or permanent disablement, should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. A further provision in that section is to the effect that where a claim for compensation is made under Section 92-A of the Act and also under Section 92-B of the Act on the principle of fault, the claim for compensation under Section 92-A of the Act, should have priority disposal. These provisions are intended only with a view to afford immediate relief to the victims of motor accidents and also additional relief later, whether they relate to death or permanent disablement. However, at the same time, provision has been made to the effect that in the case of death or permanent disablement, where the claim for compensation is based on the principle of no fault Under Section 92A of the Act and also on the basis of the right on the principle of fault under Section 92B(1) of the Act, though such rights are not mutually exclusive, yet under Section 92B(3) of the Act, provision is made for taking into account and giving effect to the compensation awardable on the principle of no fault, while awarding compensation based on the right on the principle of fault. Though under Section 92-B(1) of the Act the right to claim compensation under Section 92 Act the Act is declared to be in addition to the right to get compensation on the principle of fault, yet, the award of compensation under Section 92-A and under Section 92-B(1) of the Act is subjected to the provisions contained in Section 92(3) of the Act. According to that where it is found that a person is liable to pay compensation under Section 92-A and also under Section 92-B(1) of the Act on the right on the principle of fault, the person so liable to pay the compensation, shall pay the compensation award-able on the principle of no fault, which is referred to as the first-mentioned compensation under Section 92-B(3) of the Act. The further provision is to the effect that if the compensation based on the principle of no fault, is less than the amount of compensation based on the right on the principle of fault, the person, who is liable to pay compensation, need pay only so much of the compensation based on the right on the principle of fault, as is equal to the amount by which it exceeds the compensation on the principle of no fault, in addition to the compensation on the basis of no fault. In a case where the compensation on the basis of the principle of no fault is equal or less than the amount of compensation based on the principle of fault, then the person liable to pay compensation need not pay the compensation based on the right of the principle of fault. The object of the aforesaid provisions is clear in that though the right under Sections 92-A and 92-B(1) of the Act are in the nature of supplementary or additional rights yet, the entire liability consisting of the liability based on the principle of no fault and also the liability based on the principle of fault, should not be fastened upon the person liable to pay compensation, but the compensation based on the principle of no fault, will have to be taken into account and adjusted, while determining the quantum of compensation award-able finally. To put it differently, in a case where the compensation based on the principle of no fault is equal to or less than the amount of compensation awardable on the right on the principle of fault, the person liable to pay compensation is not obliged to pay the compensation based on the principle of fault. However, in a case where the compensation under Section 92-B(1) of the Act on the principle of fault is in excess of the compensation under Section 92-A of the Act, then, it would suffice, if the person liable to pay, pays the compensation based on the principle of no fault plus the difference between the compensation fixed on the principle of no fault. Applying this to the instant case, it is seen that the appellants are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000 by way of compensation to the respondents on the principle of no fault under Section 92-A of the Act and there is no dispute regarding this. The Tribunal had fixed the quantum of compensation on the principle of fault under Section 92-B(1) of the Act at Rs. 15,300. Under Section 92-B(3)(a) of the Act, in this case, the compensation on the principle of no fault is less than the compensation amount on the principle of fault and, therefore, the appellants can be made liable, in addition to the compensation payable on the principle of no fault, to pay only the excess amount of compensation on the principle of fault over and above the compensation payable on the basis of no fault and that would be a sum of Rs. 15,000 plus (Rs. 15,300 minus Rs. 15,000, i.e., Rs. 300) Rs. 300, totalling to Rs. 15,300 in all. Even in the application praying for the award of compensation, the respondents had stated that inclusive of the compensation awardable under Section 92-A of the Act, they may be awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 40,000. Unfortunately, this had not been noticed by the Tribunal while it proceeded to award Rs. 30,300 made up of Rs. 15,000 under Section 92-A of the Act and Rs. 15,300 under Section 92-B(1) of the Act, totalling to Rs. 30,300 in all. The computation of the compensation by the Tribunal is opposed to the provisions of the Act referred to earlier and cannot, therefore, be sustained.
6. In the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ind Kaur 1986 A.C.J. 194, the accident, out of which claim for compensation arose, took place on 10.6.1982, while the amendments under Sections 92-A and 92-B of the Act became operative with effect from 1.10.1982 and in spite of it, the Court proceeded to hold that the adjustment under Section 92-B of the Act should have been made available to the insurance company. In so holding, Section 92-B(3)(a) of the Act has been interpreted in the light of the objects and reasons to the effect that the compensation payable by a owner on the basis of wrongful act or negligence on his part, would be reduced by the compensation already paid by him. Though that decision was rendered with reference to an accident that took place at a time when Section 92-A and 92-B of the Act were not made applicable, on the facts of the present case, to which those provisions stand attracted, the interpretation put upon them permitting an adjustment, would be applicable. Under those circumstances, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part and the award of the Tribunal is modified and the liability of the appellants to pay compensation to the respondents is fixed at Rs. 15.300 instead of Rs. 30,300 as fixed by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum, as provided by the Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs.