(1.) THIS civil misc. was filed with a prayer that respondent be directed to make payment in accordance with Section 140 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. With the consent of counsel for the parties the matter has been heard finally today.
(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length I am of the view that only question which requires determination and has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accident took place on 20. 12. 1994 while Section 140 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act was amended in November, 1994, the petitioner would be entitled to claim the amended compensation as prescribed or not. The Motor Vehicles Act was amended to incorporate the provision Under Section 140 (2) to require minimum compensation payable in case of death in an accident would be Rs. 50,000/ -. The accident admittedly took place on 20. 12. 1994 and petition was filed in the court on 3. 1. 1995. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial Court has only awarded compensation of Rs. 33,600/alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i. e. 3. 1. 1995, while it ought to have awarded in any case minimum sum of Rs. 50,000/- as provided under the Statute itself. Counsel appearing for the insurance company has not been able to bring to my notice anything to the contrary either precedent of this court or any judgment relating to interpretation of Statute. The basic rule of interpretation of Statute is that law is perspective. If it is held to be perspective in the present case, date of accident as well as filing of the petition is subsequent to the amendment of the Act. Consequently, I find no reasons why the trial court should not have granted minimum statutory compensation payable in a accident.