Claimants are entitled to compensation under amended Motor Vehicles Act without proving negligence, with the retroactive application of compensation limits.

JUDGMENT :

PRAVIN S . PATIL , J .

1. Heard.

2. By way of present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wardha, in Claim Petition No.25/2004 dated 03.03.2008.

3. In short, the case before the Tribunal was, the present respondents, who are the original claimants, filed the Claim Petition under Section 163 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act by stating that deceased Nitin, while traveling on 29.03.2003, on his scooter bearing No. MH 12/TC–122, brushing dash by an unknown vehicle was given to the Scooter, because of which, Nitin lost control over his scooter and the scooter dashed against the truck bearing No. MH 31-M/6254 and sustained fatal injuries and died in the hospital.

4. The Police Station Khamgaon, on the basis of First Information Report has lodged the offence vide Crime No.37/2003, dated 29.03.2003. On the basis of this police complaint, the spot panchanama (Exhibit-37), inquest panchanama (Exhibit-38) and post mortem report (Exhibit- 39) were prepared in the matter. This registration of crime itself demonstrates that there was an accident and in that accident, the deceased Nitin caused death.

5. It is a well-settled position of law that a Claim Petition filed under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for deciding the petition, the only requirement was that the accident should occurred out of the use of a motor vehicle. There is no need to prove the negligence on the part of any person involved in the accident. In the background of this factual and legal position, the learned Tribunal by impugned judgment has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- to the respondents/claimants.

6. The appellant Insurance Company challenged the judgment and order before this Court by way of present appeal on the ground that the claimants in their application has stated that the deceased was having income of Rs.6000/- per month, which according to the appellant exceeds the limit prescribed of maximum of Rs.40,000/- per annum and thereby, the claim petition itself was not tenable and consequently the awarding the compensation is illegal. Secondly, it is the submission of the appellant that the vehicle was driven by the deceased and there was negligence on a part while driving the vehicle. Hence, the deceased being the driver and owner of the vehicle is not entitled for the compensation in the matter.

7. In response to the notices issued by this Court, the respondents claimants appeared in the matter and contested the present appeal. According to them, the learned Tribunal has awarded the less compensation though it was proved beyond doubt that the deceased caused death in the motor vehicle accident and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation Rs.5,00,000/- in the matter. In view of submission of both the parties, the following issues need consideration in the matter:

i) Whether the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is tenable in light of amended provisions to the Motor Vehicles Act particularly due to substitution of Section 164 in place of 163A?

ii) Whether the respondents/claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

iii) Whether the provisions of Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act can be made retrospectively in the matter?

8. In the present appeal, before adverting to the merits of the matter, it will be necessary to consider Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which read