REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.                OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C)3571 OF 2007)

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

Versus

Kulwant Kaur & Ors. ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

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