NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. K PERIANAYAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pending disposal of the O.P.No.126 of 1989 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, the claimant filed I.A.No.274 of 1990 under Order 16, Rule 17 CPC praying to permit the petitioner to enhance the claim of compensation amount from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. The learned Judge relying on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, reported in T. Srinivasulu Reddy vs. C. Govardhana Naidu1 held that Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act applies to a petition for compensation as on 1-10-1982 irrespective of the fact that the accident took place prior to that date and ultimately allowed the application. Against that, the Insurance Company filed this appeal.

(2.) The accident in this case took place on 12-6-1989. The new Act came into force on 1-7-1989. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the decision of the Division bench which has been relied upon by the Court below has been subsequently clarified in Dorakonda Venkatrama Seshachalapathi vs. The Vijayawada Co-op. Central Bank, Vijayawada Rep. by its Secretary and in view of the clarification given by the later Division Bench, if any offence took place prior to the commencement of the new Act, the compensation that is to be awarded must be restricted to the amount that has been prescribed under the old Act with regard to Section 92-A. That means, prior to the amending Act came into force, it is Rs.15,000/- and after the amendment, it has been raised to Rs.25,000/-. It is true that it is a beneficial legislation and the benefit must go to the claimants or the injured, but the very same Division Bench has clarified the position saying that it was not brought to their notice about the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which came into force on 1-7-1989 at the time of the hearing of the earlier case. Having observed so, the later Division Bench ultimately granted Rs.7,500/- in the case of injured duly taking into account the amount prescribed under the old Act.

(3.) It is also to be seen that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 was repealed as pef Section 297 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But it may be noted that Section 92- A, of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is in part materia with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The proviso under sub-clause (2)of SectionllO-Aof the 1939 Act is similar to the proviso under Section 166(2) of the 1988 Act. Section 217 of the New Act is the repealing section and under which the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was repealed. Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. Section 92-A of 1939 Act applies even in regard to accidents occurred-prior to 1-10-1982. Therefore, in spite of the repeal of the 1939 Act, the liability arising under Section 92-A is saved.