JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, CJI. :—This appeal by certificate of fitness arises out of the judgment of the Karnataka High Court

ated Jan. 9, 1976 in. Misc. First Appeal No. 19 of 1973.

2. On April 5, 1970, the appellants husband was driving a scooter, MYL 8574, on the Kasturba Road, Bangalore, when a goods truck, MYT 3298, knocked him dead. The owner of the truck had taken a statutory insurance policy with the respondent. The Premier Insurance Co. Ltd., Gandhinagar, Bangalore, which was operative from June 30, 1969 to June 29, 1970. The appellant filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, seeking compensation for her husbands death. The respondent denied its liability on the ground, amongst others, that its record did not disclose that it had issued any insurance policy in respect of the particular truck. On a consideration of the entire evidence, the Tribunal passed an award on Nov. 20, 1972, holding that the appellant was entitled to recover compensation in the sum of Rs. 60,000 for herself and her children. The Tribunal. limited the liability of the respondent-insurer to a sum of Rs. 50,000.

3. The respondent filed an appeal in the High Court contending that on the date on which the insurance policy was alleged to have been issued by it, its statutory liability was limited to a sum of Rs. 20,000 only and, therefore, the Tribunal was in error in passing an award against it in the sum of Rupees 50,000. This contention was accepted by the High Court and hence this appeal by the claimant.

4. Chap. VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (The Act"), bears the heading "Insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks". By S. 94 (1) of the Act, no person can use a motor vehicle in a public place, except as a passenger, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of the chapter. Section 95 prescribes the requirements of the insurance policy and the "limits of liability" thereunder, Broadly, by sub-see. (1) of S. 95, a policy of insurance must insure the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-s. (2) against any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or, arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Section 95 (2) (a) of the Act, with which alone we are concerned in this appeal, was originally cast thus :

"95 (2). Subject to the proviso to sub-s. (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely :-

(a) where the vehicle is a vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of goods, a limit of twenty thousand rupees."

This section was amended by Amendment Act 100 of 1956 which, inter alia, introduced therein the words" in all" after the words "twenty thousand rupees". We are not concerned with that amendment. What we are concerned with is the amendment made to Cl. (a) of S. 95 (2) by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 56 of 1969, which substituted therein the word "fifty" for the word "twenty". Section 95 (2) (a) so amended reads thus :

"95 (2). Subject to the proviso to sub-s. (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely :-

(a) where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all ... ... ..." Thus, the insurers liability under the statutory policy was increased by this amendment from twenty thousand rupees to fifty thousand rupees, The amendment came into force on March 2, 1970.

5. The question which arises for consideration is whether the insurers liability for third party risks under the statutory policy must be held to be limited to Rs. 20,000 according to the relevant legal provision as it existed on the date on which the policy came into force or, whether, that liability ca