The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act to pending proceedings and its retrospective effect, based on the social welfare objectives of the legislation.

1. The petitioners in O. P. (MV) No. 689 of 1982 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Trivandrum, are the appellants in this appeal. They are the legal heirs of one Johnson, who died on 29-5-1982 in an accident. Deceased Johnson was standing by the side of Poovar- Vizhinjam road at about 9.30 PM. A passenger bus KLX 2794 came from north in a rash and negligent manner through the wrong side. On seeing the vehicle, one Simon who was standing near the deceased pushed him on the road forcibly and Johnson was run over by the bus and consequently he died instantaneously. The petitioners averred in the petition that the deceased was the proprietor of a plantain leaf shop, earning a monthly income of Rs. 1000/-, that he used to spend Rs. 700/- per mensem to his family, that he was only 34 years old at the time of bis death, that but for the accident he would have lived at least upto 70 years and that the death of the deceased caused very serious pain, mental agony and suffering to the petitioners who were depending on the deceased for their livelihood. The 1st petitioner lost her right of marital consortium and happy life; the petitioners 2 to S also lost the parental care, protection, love and affection from their father, the deceased, and petitioners 6 and 7 are aged parents of the deceased and they were maintained by the deceased. The petitioners also contended that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent and hence respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The petitioners claimed a total compensation of Rs. 1,01,000/-.

2. The 1st respondent, who was the owner of 'the vehicle, filed a written statement repudiating the claim of the petitioners and contending that the petition was not maintainable, that the same was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, that the accused in the criminal case ought to have been impleaded in the case, that the petitioners had to prove the allegations in the petition and that in any event, the claim was exorbitant. It was also alleged that when the bus reached Olathanni, deceased Johnson was abruptly pushed on to the road by one Simon, and the head of the deceased hit against the right side of the bus and he fell on the tarred road and that the above facts would clearly show that the accident occurred as a result of the act of Simon who was accused in Crime No. 262/82 of the Neyyattinkara Police Station, which was registered relating to this accident and in the circumstances, the first respondent pleaded that it was not liable to pay any compensation.

3. The deceased was 34 years old at the time of accident. In the petition, it was alleged that on 19-5-82, when the deceased was standing on the right side of the road, the bus KLX 2794 driven by the 2nd respondent came in a rash and negligent manner from south to north along the wrong side and on seeing this one Simon pushed the deceased forcibly and that be was run over by the bus and died on the spot.

4. The Tribunal found on the basis of the averments in the petition and the facts proved in the case that the accident took place as a result of wrongful act of Simon and the driver of the bus could not be said to be negligent in driving. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed this appeal.

5. Though the counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation bus, we are unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel in view of the averments in the petition itself and also the facts proved in the case.

6. The learned counsel however raised a contention that in view of S.92-A which was introduced by Act 47 of 1982, the petitioners are entitled to compensatio