NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. YASODA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this appeal is whether section 140 of the Moter Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988") shall have retrospective operation. In other words, whether the order of the Claim Tribunal awarding Rs. 25,000/- as interim compensation in proposed exercise of jurisdiction under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 in respect of a claim arising out of an accident occurred when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1939) in force, is in accordance with law?

(2.) The fact of the case before me is very short. The claimant-respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before the District Judge, Purnia, under Section 110-A of the Act of 1939 for grant of compensation alleging therein that, on 24.6.1989, his son Dilip Kumar Yadav aged about 23 years, while going to Purnia, on a bus bearing registration No. PHK 8919, fell down in a ditch near Roskagarh in village Baniapati, Purnia ; as a result of which the said Dilip Kumar Yadav died. In the said claim, which was registered as compenstion Case No. 49 of 1989, the claimant- respondent No.l, filed an application on 10.8.1990, claiming interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/-under Section 140 of the Act of 1988. The appellant opposite party, namely, the Insurance Company, filed rejoinder to the above petition stating therein that the accident took place on 24.6.1989, i. e. before the commencement of the Act of 1988. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to get the benefit of section 140 of the said Act of 1988.

(3.) Learned Claims-Tribunal disposed of the said application in terms of order dated 23.7.1992 which is impugned in this appeal. The learned Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled to get the benefit under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 and are entitled to interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. According to the Tribunal, although the accident took place on 24.6.1989, the petition for interim compensation was filed on 23.8.1989, i.e., after the commencement of the Act of 1988, the petition shall be governed by the Act of 1988 and not be the Act of 1939. The Tribunal, while holding the same, relied upon decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in A. I. R. 1992 Raj. 62.