NATIONAL INSURANCE CO Vs. MANJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous appeal Is directed against the order dated July 15, 1989, passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded the compensation under 'no fault liability' amounting to Rs. 25,000/ -.

(2.) CLAIMANTS Manju Devi and others filed a claim petition under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act In the Court of the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu, with respect to the accident which took -place on August 8, 1986. Alongwith the claim petition, an application under Section 92 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, the Act') was moved. This application under Section 92 -A of the Act was pending when the old Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 stook repealed by the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, by his award dated September 15, 1989, awarded the compensation amounting to Rs. 25,00/ - under 'no fault liability'.

(3.) THIS case is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Onam and Ors. (supra), wherein it has been held that the crucial date to determine the quantum of compensation under 'no fault liability' is the date on which the Tribunal or the Court is required to award compensation under 'no fault liability', though the accident, for which the compensation is to be measured, has taken place on an antecedent date. In the present case the application was decided by the learned Tribvunal after coming into force of the Act of 1988 and not prior to that, though the application was filed under the old Act. If the application would have been decided under the old Act then in that circumstance the learned Judge of the Tribunal could not have awarded the compensation beyond Rs. 15,000/ -, but the matter was decided after coming into force of the new Act of 1988 and, therefore, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, the learned Member of the Tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 25,000/ -. Hon'ble the Chief Justice in Kanhaiya Lal and Anr. v. Kailashi Devi and Ors. has, also, taken the same view and held that payment of no fault compensation is a procedural matter and law dealing with the procedure of the Court can be retrospective unless such a construction is textually inadmissible. Thus, it is not necessary to consider the Full Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as the point is decided by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Ogam and Ors. (supra).