Judgment :- 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 brother and sister respectively of one Francis Gabriel. According to the case of respondents, on 11.11.1982 at about 5 p.m. Francis Gabriel was riding his bicycle slowly observing the rules of the road from east to west on the left side of Madurai...Dindigul near Visalakshi Mills at Vilangudi and his friend one Thavamani was seated on the carrier the cycle. At that time, the bus belonging to the first Appellant bearing registration 1076, which was also proceeding from east to west, was driven rashly and negligently driver Muru-gan with out sounding the horn and contrary to the road regulations and against Francis Gabriel, who sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to them on the Alleging that the accident resulting in the death of Francis Gabriel was only on account rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the first appellant by its driver, respondents herein stated that taking into account the age of the deceased and his they are entitled to be paid compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000. Referring amendments made to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred ‘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 Secs.92-A and 92-B of the Act and further stated secure this compensation, they need not plead or establish any wrongful act on the the driver or the owner of the vehicle, as the right to claim such compensation Sec.92-A of the Act is in addition to the other right to claim compensation referred to right on the principle of fault. Even in the paragraph relating to the reliefs prayed 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 sum of Rs.15,000 referred to as the first mentioned claim therein. 2. Even in the paragraph relating to the reliefs prayed 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 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 the respondents on the ground that Francis Gabriel suddenly darted across the road spite of the application of the brakes by the driver of the bus, the accident could averted and the cycle driven by Francis Gabriel hit against the bus, as a result of which lost his life and the accident was, ‘therefore, attributable only to the negligence deceased. The appellants also disputed the entitlement of the respondents 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 respondent and another gave evidence as P.Ws.l and 2, while, on behalf of the appellants the driver of the bus alone was examined as On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Tribunal found the accident took place only on account of the rash and negligent driving of belonging to the first appellant by its driver R.W.I. Considering the age of the deceased also his earnings, the Tribunal determined the compensation payable to the respondents sum of Rs. 15,300 comprising of Rs. 14,000 towards loss of expectation of life and Rs.1,000 towards loss of love and affection and Rs.300 towards funeral expenses. thus determined the compensation payable to the respondents, the Tribunal proceeded award compensation under Sec.92-A of the Act in a sum of Rs.15,000 on the footing accident had taken place on 11.11.1982, after the coming into force of Sec.92-A of with effect from 1.10.1982 and finally determined the total compensation payable respondents at Rs.30,300, by totalling up Rs.15,300 and Rs.15,000 respectively 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 that is questioned by the appellants in this appeal. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants, referring to Secs.92-A and 92-B of the Act particular to Sec.92-B(3), contended that the Tribunal had failed to give effect to Sec.92 (3), (a) of the Act and had proceeded to award compensation on the principle of no fault also on the basis of fault and had merely added up the two amounts of compensation this runs counter to Sec.92-B(3), (a) of the Act and at best, Tribunal could have passed award only for a sum of Rs.15,300 and, therefore, the award of the Tribunal modification. Reliance was also placed in this connection upon the decision reported India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ind Kaur, 1986 A.C.J. 194. On the other hand, learned for the respondents made a feeble attempt to sustain the award of the Tribunal on reasoning, besides submitting that the quantum of compensation awarded could be under the several heads of claim made by the respondents. 5. Before proceeding to the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants, it would be necessary to Secs.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: "92-A. (1) Where the death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with provisions of this section. (2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under Sub-sec(1) in respect death of any person shall be a fixed sum of fifteen thousand rupees and the amount compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement any person shall be a fixed sum of seven thousand five hundred rupees. (3) In any claim for compensation under Sub-sec(1), the claimant shall not be required plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) In any claim for compensation under Sub-sec(1), the claimant shall not be required plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (4) A claim for compensation under Sub-sec.(1) shall not be defeated by reason of 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 respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement. 92-B. (1) The right to claim compensation under Sec.92-A in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person shall be in addition to any other right (hereafter in this referred to as the right on the principle of fault) to claim compensation in respect under any other provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force. (2) A claim for compensation under in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person shall be disposed expeditiously as possible and where compensation is claimed in respect of such permanent disablement under Sec.92-A and also in pursuance of any right on the principle fault, the claim for compensation under Sec.92-A shall be disposed of as aforesaid first place. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sec(1), where in respect death or permanent disablement of any person, the person liable to pay compensation Scc.92-A is also liable to pay compensation in accordance with the right on the principle 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 mentioned compensation, he shall be liable to pay (in addition to the first- compensation) only so much of the second mentioned compensation as is equal 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 the second-mentioned compensation, he shall not be liable to pay the second- compensation. 92-E. The provisions of this Chapter shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained any other provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force." Under Sec.1(2) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1982 (47 of 1982), the 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, (ii) dated 15.9.1982, the 1st day of October, 1982 was appointed as the date on which provisions of Secs.2 to 7, Secs.10 to 27 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1982) shall come into force. Secs.92-A, 92-B and 92-E of the Act were introduced Chapter VII-A of the Act by Sec.11 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1982 (47 1982) and in view of the notification referred to earlier, Secs.92-A, 92-B and 92-E of the became operative and applicable with effect from 1.10.1982. The accident in this case place on 11.11.1982 and there can, therefore, be no dispute that Secs.92-A, 92-B and of the Act would stand attracted to this case. Sec.92-E of the Act declares the overriding effect of the provisions under Chapter VII-A of the Act. Scc.92-A of the Act fastens liability for payment of compensation jointly and severally upon the owner or owners of vehicles respect of death or disablement resulting from an accident arising out of the use of a Vehicle or Motor Vehicles and such liability is declared to be in accordance with provisions of Sec.92-A(1) of the Act. However, Sec.92-A(2), referring to Sec.92-A(1) of Act, fixes the quantum of compensation in a sum of Rs.15,000 in respect of death Rs.7,500 for permanent disablement. Under Sec.92-A(3) of the Act, it is provided that unnecessary for the claimant to plead and prove that death or disablement in respect which the claim had been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the or owners or of any other person. Under Sec.92-A(3) of the Act, it is provided that unnecessary for the claimant to plead and prove that death or disablement in respect which the claim had been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the or owners or of any other person. Under Sec.92-A(4) of the Act, it is provided that the for compensation under Scc.92-A(1) of the Act shall not be defeated by any wrongful neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or disablement the claim is 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 or disablement, as the case may be. It is thus seen that under Scc.92-A(1) to (4) of the in cases of death or permanent disablement, arising out of the use of a motor vehicle motor vehicles, the dependents of the dead person or the injured person, as the case be, are entitled to recover from the owner or owners of the vehicles, compensation in a 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 vehicles and the compensation thus awardable is also not in any manner affected either wrongful act, neglect or default of the dead person or the person permanently disabled or even basis of the share of responsibility of the dead or injured person for such death permanent disablement. In other words, the purport of Sec.92-A(1) to (4) is that proof of any negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle or of any other person, 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 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 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 compensation for death or permanent 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 compensation for death or permanent disablement. However, under Sec.92-B(1) of the right to claim compensation under Sec.92-A of the Act has been declared to addition to any other right, such right having been referred to in the section as the right the principle of fault, to claim compensation in respect of death or disablement under other provision of the Act. Thus, Sec.92-B(1) of the Act recognises that the right to compensation under Sec.92-Aof the Act is really in the nature of an additional right, addition to the right to claim compensation under other provisions of the Act. Further, Sec.92-B(2) of the Act, it has been provided that a claim for compensation under Sec.92 of the Act either in respect of death or permanent disablement, should be disposed (expeditiously as possible. A further provision in that section is to the effect that where claim for compensation is made under Sec.92-A of the Act and also under Sec.92 Act on the principle of fault, the claim for compensation under Sec.92-A of the Act, 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 death or permanent disablement. However, at the same time, provision has been made the effect that in the case of death or permanent disablement, where the claim compensation is based on the principle of no fault under Sec.92-A of the Act and also basis of the right on the principle of fault under Sec.92-B(1) of the Act, though such are not mutually exclusive, yet, under Sec.92-B(3) of the Act, provision is made for into account and giving effect to the compensation awardable on the principle of no while awarding compensation based on the right on the principle of fault. Though Sec.92-B(1) of the Act the right to claim compensation under Sec.92-A of the Act is declared to be in addition to the right to get compensation on the principle of fault, yet, the award compensation under Sec.92-A and under Sec.92-B(1) of the Act is subjected provisions contained in Sec.92(3) of the Act. Though Sec.92-B(1) of the Act the right to claim compensation under Sec.92-A of the Act is declared to be in addition to the right to get compensation on the principle of fault, yet, the award compensation under Sec.92-A and under Sec.92-B(1) of the Act is subjected provisions contained in Sec.92(3) of the Act. According to that, where it is found person is liable to pay compensation under Sec.92-A and also under Sec.92-B(1) of on the right on the principle of fault, the person so liable to pay the compensation, shall the compensation award-able on the principle of no fault, which is referred to as the mentioned compensation under Sec.92-B(3) of the Act. The further provision is to the that if the compensation based on the principle of no fault, is less than the amount compensation based on the right on the principle of fault, the person, who is liable compensation, need pay only so much of the compensation based on the right principle of fault, as is equal to the amount by which it exceeds the compensation principle of no fault, in addition to the compensation on the basis of no fault. In where the compensation on the basis of the principle of no fault is equal or less than amount of compensation based on the principle of fault, then the person liable compensation need not pay the compensation based on the right on the principle of The object of the aforesaid provisions is clear in that though the right under Secs.92 92-B(1) of the Act are in the nature of supplementary or additional rights, yet, the liability consisting of the liability based on the principle of no fault and also the liability 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 and adjusted, while determining the quantum of compensation award-able finally. To put it differently, in where the compensation based on the principle of no fault is equal to or less than amount of compensation awardable on the right on the principle of fault, the person pay compensation is not obliged to pay the compensation based on the principle However, in a case where the compensation under Sec.92-B(1) of the Act on the principle fault is in excess of the compensation under Sec.92-A of the Act, then, it would suffice, person liable to pay, pays the compensation based on the principle of no fault difference between the compensation fixed on the principle of no fault. Applying this instant case, it is seen that the appellants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,000 by compensation to the respondents on the principle of no fault under Sec.92-A of the there is no dispute regarding this. The Tribunal had fixed the quantum of compensation the principle of fault under Sec.92-B(1) of the Act at Rs.15,300. Under Sec.92-B(3)(a)of 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 to the compensation payable on the principle of no fault, to pay only the excess amount compensation on the principle of fault over and above the compensation payable on the of no fault and that would be a sum of Rs.15,000 plus (Rs.15,300 minus Rs.15,000, Rs.300) Rs.300, totalling to Rs.15,300 in all. Even in the application praying for the compensation, the respondents had stated that inclusive of the compensation awardable under Sec.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 Rs.30,300 made up of Rs.15,000 under Sec.92-A of the Act and Rs.15,300 under (1) of the Act, totalling to Rs.30,300 in all. The computation of the compensation Tribunal is opposed to the provisions of the Act referred to earlier and cannot, therefore, sustained. 6. In the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. The computation of the compensation Tribunal is opposed to the provisions of the Act referred to earlier and cannot, therefore, sustained. 6. In the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ind 1986A.C.J. 194, the accident, out of which claim for compensation arose, took 10.6.1982, while the amendments under Secs.92-A and 92-B of the Act became with effect from 1.10.1982 and in spite of it, the Court proceeded to hold that the adjustment under Sec.92-B of the Act should have been made available to the insurance company. holding, Sec.92-B(3)(a) of the Act has been interpreted in the light of the objects reasons to the effect that the compensation payable by a owner on the basis of wrongful or negligence on his part, would be reduced by the compensation already paid Though that decision was rendered with reference to an accident that took place at when Secs.92-A and 92-B of the Act were not made applicable, on the facts of the 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 appellants to pay compensation to the respondents is fixed at Rs.15.300 instead Rs.30,300 as fixed by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum, as provided Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed the part.