Omitted
Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with omitted. [Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.]--Omitted by s. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 1989.
[Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.]--Omitted by s. 50, ibid, (w.e.f. 1-4-2022).]
Section 140, The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 59 of 1988).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Indra Devi & ORS vs Bagada Ram
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
No fault compensation payable under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a statutory right that exists independent of and regardless of any negligence, wrongful act, neglect or default attributable to the deceased person in respect of whose death the claim is made. Once such compensation has been paid by the insurance company, it cannot be recovered or refunded merely because subsequent investigation or judicial finding attributes fault to the deceased. The statutory character of no fault compensation as compensation 'on the principle of no fault' renders it non-refundable and distinguishes it fundamentally from fault-based compensation claims.
On this section: No fault compensation. The court held that Section 140 provides compensation 'on the principle of no fault' which means it is payable regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default. This compensation is not conditional on the absence of negligence and is therefore non-refundable even if fault is later established.
-
Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa vs C. S. Gurushanthappa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The liability of a motor vehicle owner under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to pay no-fault compensation for death or permanent disablement resulting from a motor accident is absolute and independent of the owner's knowledge, consent, or involvement in the accident, and such compensation is a fixed sum determined by law that cannot be reduced, refused, or delayed based on the circumstances of the accident, the fault of the vehicle operator, the unauthorized use of the vehicle, or the procedural timing of the claim, as the statutory scheme under Chapter X (read with Sections 146-147) embodies a public policy mandate that all accident victims receive minimum compensation from the insurance fund to ensure immediate relief without exception or procedural impediment.
On this section: Core provision establishing no-fault liability of vehicle owners for death or permanent disablement resulting from motor vehicle accidents; fixed compensation amount of Rs. 50,000 for death (Rs. 25,000 at time of accident) without requiring proof of wrongful act or negligence; independent liability mechanism
-
State of Punjab vs Bhajan Kaur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A statute is presumed to be prospective unless held to be retrospective, either expressly or by necessary implication. Where a right is created by an enactment, in the absence of a clear provision in the statute, it is not to be applied retrospectively. The statutory liability created under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (providing Rs. 15,000 no-fault liability) was the right applicable when the cause of action arose for an accident occurring in 1983. The Motor Vehicles Act 1988, which came into force on 1 July 1989 and increased no-fault liability to Rs. 25,000 (and later to Rs. 50,000 in 1994), does not have retrospective effect as it contains no express or necessary implication of retrospective application. Rights and liabilities of parties are determined by the law in force when the cause of action arose, not by later legislation. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 saves existing rights under the repealed statute but does not create new rights, and therefore applies to protect the claimant's right to the Rs. 15,000 compensation under the 1939 Act rather than extending the enhanced compensation of the 1988 Act.
On this section: Enhanced no-fault liability to Rs. 25,000; held that this provision does not have retrospective effect and cannot apply to pre-1989 accidents
-
Union of India vs Prabhakaran Vijayakumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket attempts to board a moving train and falls as a result, this constitutes an 'accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers' within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, and therefore qualifies as an 'untoward incident' entitling the passenger or their dependents to compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act. The Railways Act, being a beneficial welfare statute, must be interpreted liberally and purposively to advance its object of protecting railway passengers, not narrowly or technically. Strict liability applies under Section 124A irrespective of fault or negligence on the part of the Railway Administration, and this principle extends to public undertakings as part of the constitutional duty of the Welfare State to protect its citizens.
On this section: Cited as examples of statutes incorporating the principle of strict liability for accidents.
-
Premkumari vs Prahlad Dev
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An insurance company cannot escape liability to pay motor accident compensation merely on the ground that the driver possessed a fake or invalid driving license. The insurance company must establish that the insured (vehicle owner) committed a breach of policy conditions by negligently failing to verify a driver's license or being aware that the license was fake. A vehicle owner who verifies that a driver possesses a license that appears genuine on its face and is competent to drive has not breached any policy condition. Therefore, in such cases, the insurance company remains liable to innocent third parties, though it may be entitled to recover the amount from the insured if breach is substantially proved. The compulsory insurance scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act is fundamentally designed to protect accident victims, and this protective purpose cannot be defeated by technical grounds related to driver licensing.
On this section: Relates to third-party insurance coverage requirements
-
Tara Devsingh Chavan vs Abbas Akbar Ali
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Failure to wear a helmet on a national highway and driving a vehicle type not covered by one's license constitutes contributory negligence if the resulting injury was the primary cause of death.
On this section: No-fault liability.
-
Nanda Amar Ingawale vs Shri Satish Bhanudas Raibage
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of composite negligence, the injured party has the option to proceed against any or all of the joint tortfeasors; the claim is not bad for non-joinder of one tortfeasor.
On this section: Liability to pay compensation on the principle of no-fault.
-
Sumitra Sarkar vs Oriental insurance Co. Ltd
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a claim under Section 166 of the MV Act, it is mandatory for the claimant to establish rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle through documentary evidence.
On this section: No-fault liability (referenced in the claim).
-
Sekar alias Ganasekar vs The Managing Director, T.N.S.T.C.Ltd., Tirunelveli
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A government transport corporation is liable to pay compensation to a passenger injured due to the negligent and rash driving of its bus driver, even if the passenger was standing in an unsafe position or had consumed alcohol, provided the driver's negligence was the primary cause of the accident. However, the compensation may be reduced proportionally to account for the passenger's contributory negligence. The liability of the transport corporation cannot be absolved merely by the absence of corroborating evidence from the driver or by unsubstantiated claims of unavoidable circumstances.
On this section: Jurisdiction of the court to entertain motor accident compensation claims
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 140
What have the courts held on Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act?
Indra Devi & ORS vs Bagada Ram (18 Aug 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: No fault compensation. The court held that Section 140 provides compensation 'on the principle of no fault' which means it is payable regardless of any wrongful act, neglect or default. This compensation is not conditional on the absence of negligence and is therefore non-refundable even if fault is later established. Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: MV Act 140, section 140 MV Act, section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Indra Devi & ORS vs Bagada Ram (18 Aug 2010).
When did Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act come into force?
Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, cited as MV Act 140, came into force on 01 Jul 1989, having been enacted on 14 Oct 1988. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions1948 words
- 88. Validation of permits for use outside region in which granted1560 words
- 51. Special provisions regarding motor vehicle subject to hire-purchase agreement, etc1199 words
- 150. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks1102 words
- 96. Power of State Government to make rules for the purposes of this Chapter995 words
- 72. Grant of stage carriage permits868 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.