( 1 ) THE appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal question the enhancement of the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal-cum-Additionas District Judge, Madanapaile under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ( the Old Act for short) to Rs. 25,000/- by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 29-11-1989 in A,a. O. No. 93 of 1988. Relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in T. Srinivasulu Reddy vs. C. Govardana Naidu, the learned Single Judge held that the appellants herein (resporidentsin the A. A. O) where "liable to pay Rs. 25,000/-instead of Rs. 15,000 in view of the amendment". It is obvious that the learned Single Judge was referring to the change brought about by Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( the New Act for short) which came into effect from 1-7-1989 repealing the old Act.

( 2 ) IN T. Srinivasulu Reddy s case, the Division Bench held that Section 92-A, which was introduced in the Old Act on 1-10-1982 by Amendment Act No. 47 of 1982 had retrospective effect and had to be given effect in all pending claim proceedings including appeals as they were continuation of the claim petitions even in cases where the accident took place prior to 1-10-1982. The question that arises in the present Letters Patent Appeal is therefore whether Section 140 of the New Act has also to be given retrospective effect in the sense that it has to be given effect in the case of claims arising from accidents occurring prior to 1-7-1989.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the question is no longer res Integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in R. L. Gupta vs. Jupitor General Insurance Company. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the contention for enhancement of compensation of Rs. 8,000/- each awarded by the Tribunal in regard to death of two persons in a motor accident. That contention was neither raised nor examined in the High Court, and on behalf of the insurer, it was contended that in the absence of a specific claim laid in the High Court about the low compensation, the said contention should not be allowed to be raised in an appeal by special leave before the supreme Court. The Supreme Court held as follows. "ordinarily, the legal position is what counsel contends. But in the peculiar facts of the case we do not think technicality of law should be permitted to stand in the way and a fair compensation should be paid in respect of the two deaths. We assess compensation for each of them at rs. 20,000 in the absence of any specific evidence. This is keeping in view the quantum of no fault liability now provided by the Statute prospectively" (emphasis supplied ). That decision of the Supreme Court was rendered on 15-11-1989 by which date the New Act was in force. Though there was no discussion, it is obvious that if the Supreme Court took the view that the New Act had retrospective effect and applied to claims for compensation for death in accidents occurring prior to 1-7-1989, the Supreme Court would have referred to Section 140of the New Act and on that basis itself it would have awarded Rs. 25,000/- each instead of rs. 20,000/-, Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court that the quantum of no fault liability provided by the New Act was prospective cannot be held to be obiter. Even otherwise, we are bound by the dicta of the Supreme Court even though they may be obiter.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants also reiies on the decisions of this court in D. V. Seshachalapathi vs. Vijayawada Co-op. Central Bank, New Indian assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kramtan Perianayagam and APSRTC vs. Smt. Azizunnisa begum in support of his contention that Section 140 of the New Act cannot be given retrospective effect. The decision in D. V. Seshachalapathi was rendered by the same Division Bench which decided T, Srinivasulu Reddy. The question whether Section 140 had retrospective effect was not considered by the Division bench.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document