JUDGMENT J.B. Koshy, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the driver of a K.S.R.T.C. bus who was the claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No.1316/1989. The bus driven by the appellant and a Lorry bearing No.KLM 7556 insured by the 2nd respondent had a collision in which damages and injuries were caused. Several injured filed claim petitions. Driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus (appellant herein) also filed a claim petition. After detailed adjudication it was found that the appellant driver was negligent and because of his rash and negligent driving the accident occurred. The appellant driver was the respondent in many of the cases filed by the other claimants. No appeals were filed by the appellant against the finding that the accident occurred because of his rash and negligent driving and he is not entitled for compensation. The only claim now pressed before us is regarding the claim under S.92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Section 140 of the present Act). It is very clear that no fault liability under S.92A cannot be claim for all injuries or permanent disablements. For getting compensation under I S.92A one should suffer permanent disablement as mentioned under S.92C which is as follows: "92C. Permanent disablement.- For the purposes of this Chapter permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an accident of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of S.92A if such person has suffered by reason of the accident any injury or injuries involving- (a) permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, or privation of any member or joint; or (b) destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member of joint; or (c) permanent disfiguration of the head or face." 2. In this case there is no medical certificate to show that there was permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, or privation of any member or joint. There is also no case of disfiguration of the head, or face. Therefore, apart from the fact that appellant is responsible for negligence and because of the fact that appellant did not suffer any permanent disablement as mentioned under S.92C, appellant is not entitled to claim benefit under S.92A. The appeal is dismissed.