NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. GANGABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision an important question of law has been raised by the applicant National Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short 'the insurance company') contending that Section 140 of Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the New Act') is not retrospective in operation and, as such, the Tribunal has erred in passing an interim award of Rs. 25,000/-, directing the insurance company to pay the same to the legal representatives of the deceased.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the purpose of this revision are thus: On 12. 6. 1988 deceased Babulal, the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 7, died in an accident by the use of a tractor MBC 8939, which at the relevant time was insured with the insurance company. The respondents-claimants filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the repealed Act') claiming compensation of Rs. 5,66,000/ -. The insurance company, the owner and the driver of the vehicle after notice filed their written statement denying their liability. The claimants moved an application on 22. 12. 1988 under Section 92-A of the repealed Act for passing an interim award. On 16. 3. 1989 the Tribunal passed the interim award of Rs. 25,000/- instead of Rs. 15,000/- as the fixed sum of compensation by Section 92-A (2) of Chapter VII-A of the repealed Act. The insurance company moved an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, for recalling of the award and for correcting the amount of compensation from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 15,000/ -. The Tribunal disposed of the application on 3. 1. 1990 holding that on the date on which the interim award of Rs. 25,000/- was passed under Section 92-A of the repealed Act, the New Act was not in force, but as the New Act has been enforced from 1st July, 1989, the award of Rs. 25,000/-so passed is legal and proper. Aggrieved of this award, the insurance company has come up in revision challenging the validity of the interim award.

(3.) MR. B. N. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company and Mr. T. C. Bansal, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, were heard at length. Mr. Bansal supported the award and contended that no fault liability Clause is retrospective in operation. He placed reliance on a few decisions of various High Courts, wherein it has been held that the object of the provision seems to provide solatium to persons who are affected by the untimely death or permanent disablement of the victim; the provision was introduced as a welfare measure to benefit the persons who are victims of road accidents. In these cases it is also observed that there is no reason why the provision should be given a restricted application by confining it to cases where the accidents took place subsequent to the introduction of the provision; every beneficial measure must be applied liberally and Section 92-A must be held to apply to pending proceedings. Those decisions are: K. P. Ali v. M. Madhavan 1990 ACJ 373 (Kerala); Vilasini v. Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation 1988 ACJ 755 (Kerala); Devji v. Anwarkhan 1989 ACJ 567 (MP); Rukmabai v. Ramlal 1988 ACJ 351 (MP) and Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shantabai S. Dhume 1987 ACJ 198 (Bombay ). Placing reliance on Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare AIR 1989 SC 1247 and Laxmi Narayan Guin's case AIR 1985 SC 111, learned counsel also contended that on the general principle of interpretation that when the language of a new enactment, expressly or by clear intend-ment, gives its effect retrospectively, it should be applied retrospectively by the trial court as well as the court of appeal and that the court should give effect to such a law.