Pepsu Rd. Trpt. Corpn. Patiala vs Kulwant Kaur & Ors

Pepsu Road Transport Corpn. ...Appellants Patiala, through its General Manager

Versus

Kulwant Kaur & Ors. ...Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of

the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the appeal filed by the

respondent No.1 Kulwant Kaur. An application for review of the judgment

was also dismissed. The impugned judgment was in a Letters Patent Appeal which was filed against the judgment of Learned single Judge affirming the

Judgment of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short the MACT). The

MACT has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that there was no

evidence to show any loss of dependency. The claimant's lawyer in the

appeal before the High Court took the stand that the claim was restricted to

Rs.50,000/- as no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (in short the `Act').

3. The appeal filed by the claimant was allowed. Review application

filed on the ground that Rs.50,000/- was not payable, was rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted that the

view of the High Court is clearly unsustainable. The High Court could not

have directed the payment of Rs.50,000/- as "no fault liability". The High

Court appears to have taken the view that the provision of Section 140 of

the Act operate with retrospective effect.

5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of service

of notice.

2

6. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

An incident took place on 15.10.1982. The Act came into operation

with effect from 14.10.1988 and the relevant provision was amended on

14.11.1994. The question is the date from which the Section 140 of the Act

operates and whether it operates with retrospective effect.

The High Court was of the view that that it has retrospective

operation.

The amount payable under old Act was Rs.15,000/-. Subsequently, it

was raised to Rs.50,000/-. By amendment Act no.47 of 1982 in the old Act

operative with effect from 1.10.1982, Section 92-A was introduced, making

provision for "no faulty liability". The Act was enacted on 14.10.1988, but

became operative with effective from 1.7.1989. In the Act, the amount

payable was Rs.25,000/- as no fault liability. The amount was raised to

Rs.50,000/- by amendment operative with effect from 14.11.1994.

7. In R.L. Gupta v. Jupitor General Insurance Co. [1990(1) SCC 356] it

was held the quantum of liability is provided by the Statute prospectively.

At the relevant point of time the quantum of Rs.15,000/- appears to have

been paid. The High Court's view about retrospective operation is contrary

3 to what has been stated in R.L. Gupta's case (supra). In any event, Act can

have no application in respect of a claim petition filed on 30.11.1982 and

decided by MACT on 16.7.1984.

8. Above being the position the appeal deserves to be allowed, which

we direct. The amount shall be Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- as

directed by the Tribunal.

9. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

...............................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

.....................................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi, February 23, 2008

4