NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SALAPURIAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal question the enhancement of the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-AdditionaS District Judge, Madanapaile under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the Old Act' for short) to Rs.25,000/- by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 29-11-1989 in A,A.O.No.93 of 1988. Relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in T. Srinivasulu Reddy vs. C. Govardana Naidu, the learned Single Judge held that the appellants herein (resporidentsin the A.A.O) where "liable to pay Rs.25,000/-instead of Rs.15,000 in view of the amendment". It is obvious that the learned Single Judge was referring to the change brought about by Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the New Act' for short) which came into effect from 1-7-1989 repealing the old Act.

(2.) In T. Srinivasulu Reddy's case, the Division Bench held that Section 92-A, which was introduced in the Old Act on 1-10-1982 by Amendment Act No.47 of 1982 had retrospective effect and had to be given effect in all pending claim proceedings including appeals as they were continuation of the claim petitions even in cases where the accident took place prior to 1-10-1982. The question that arises in the present Letters Patent Appeal is therefore whether Section 140 of the New Act has also to be given retrospective effect in the sense that it has to be given effect in the case of claims arising from accidents occurring prior to 1-7-1989.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the question is no longer res Integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in R.L.Gupta vs. Jupitor General Insurance Company. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the contention for enhancement of compensation of Rs.8,000/- each awarded by the Tribunal in regard to death of two persons in a motor accident. That contention was neither raised nor examined in the High Court, and on behalf of the insurer, it was contended that in the absence of a specific claim laid in the High Court about the low compensation, the said contention should not be allowed to be raised in an appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held as follows.