1. This Misc. appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 21-7-1994 passed by the Additional Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad, in Title (MV) Suit No. 87 of 1989, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. two lacs to the claimants respondents and held that the entire amount is payable by the Insurance Company.

2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff claimants for the grant of compensation on account of death of her husband by reason of motor vehicle accident. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The deceased on 13-8-1989 going from his house towards Bastacolla colliery and when he reached near a peepal tree, the trekker came from Dhanbad in a high speed and in an attempt to save another trekker dashed the deceased Pradeep Kumar Nonia causing grievous injury. The said Pradeep Kumar Nonia subsequently succumbed to the injuries on 21-8-1989. The defendant No. 1 (Respondent No. 2) being owner of the offending vehicle appeared but neither filed any written statement nor contested the suit. Defendant No. 2-appellant filed a written statement and took all possible defence available to it under the law. The Claims Tribunal after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence came to a finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Trekker bearing Registration No. BIR 1661. The Claims Tribunal further considered the evidence on the issue of quantum of compensation and assessed at Rs. two lacs. Further the Tribunal held that since the vehicle was insured the appellant-Insurance Company in terms of the policy contract (Ext. A), the entire compensation is payable by the appellant.

3. Mr. Tapen Sen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed the impugned judgment and award as being illegal and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. Learned counsel firstly drawn my attention to the policy of the Insurance by which the offending vehicle was insured and submitted that the period of insurance commenced from 20-12-1988 and expired on 19-12-1989. According to the learned counsel the New Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force from 1-7-1989 and on 13-8-1989 when the accident took place, the policy issued under the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was enforced. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that in view of the proviso to Sec. 147(2) of the Act, the liability of the Insurance Company would be in terms of the Act of 1939 and the policy issued thereunder. In this connection, learned counsel relied upon the decision of a Division Bench in the case of Prabhavati Sharma V/s. Brij Mohan Parihar, (1990) 1 ACJ 399 (Madh Pra). On the other hand Mr. S.K. Laik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that under the new Act of 1988 the Insurance Companys liability is unlimited. According to the learned counsel the M.V. Act of 1988 has got retrospective effect.

4. For better appreciation of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel it would be appropriate to look into the provisions of Sec. 147(2)(3) of the new Act of 1988.Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Sec. 147 runs as follows :-

Sub-section (2) :-Subject to the proviso to Sub-sec. (1), a policy of insurance referred to in Sub-sec. (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident up to the following limits, namely;(a) save as provided in Cl. (b), the amount of liability incurred;(b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party a limit of rupees six thousand :Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier.Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 147 runs as follows :-"A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance