Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—The instant misc. appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.3.1998 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in MAC No. 45/94 whereby the learned Judge awarded a total sum of Rs. 11,54,152/- to the appellants claimants as compensation for the death of Mukundbhai Devji Bhai Kotecha. Out of the said compensation amount, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was directed to be paid by the insurance company respondent No. 3 as limited liability whereas, the appellants were left to recover the remaining compensation amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant No. 1's husband late Shri Mukundbhai Devjibhai Kotecha was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. GRP 3584 which was being driven by one Upendra Jayantilal Thakar. The owner of the vehicle was Devashibhai Dungarbhai Radariya. The vehicle was insured by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. under the Act of 1939 for a limited liability. The said vehicle met with an accident on 9.11.1989 by colliding against a tree near village Dhola, District Pali. Mukundbhai who was sitting in the vehicle alongwith his younger brother Nilesh received head injuries as a result of the accident and expired later on. At the relevant time, Mukundbhai was 39 years of age and was working in a concern named R.K. Goel & Co. Ltd. at Leicester (U.K.).

3. A claim was filed by his wife and three minor daughters in the court of the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying for compensation of Rs. 25 lacs under various heads. In support of the claim petition, the salary/pay certificates issued by the employer of Mukundbha certifying that he was drawing a salary of 120 pounds per week i.e. 6240 pounds per annum were filed and exhibited.

4. The learned Tribunal framed following six issues to be decided by it:

(1) Whether the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and therefore, the same met with an accident resulting into the death of Mukundbhai.

(2) Whether the claimants are entitled to a claim of Rs. 25 lacs with interest.

(3) Whether the insurance company is having a limited liability to make payment towards the claim.

(4) Whether the vehicle in question was not being driven under a valid permit or licence and thus, the respondent No. 3 insurance company was absolved of the liability to make payment of the compensation.

(5) Whether the respondent No. 2 the owner did not give intimation of the accident to the insurance company and thus, the insurance company is absolved of its liability.

(6) Relief.

5. The issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the appellants. It has not been challenged by any of the respondents and thus, it has become final in favour of the appellants. Issues No. 4 and 5 were not contested by the insurance company and thus, the same were decided in favour of the claimants. The said findings have also not been challenged and thus, have become final. The issue No. 6 regarding the compensation payable to the claimants was decided by the learned Tribunal as indicated above by awarding a total sum of Rs. 11,54,152/- as compensation to the claimants, Issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the insurance company and the insurance company was held to be liable to a limited extent of Rs. 15,000/- out of total compensation of Rs. 11,54,152/-.

6. The present appeal is preferred challenging the findings and decision of the learned Tribunal.

7. Shri Anil Bhandari learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal committed a grave error in holding that the provisions of the new Act i.e. Motor Vehicles Act 1988 would not be applicable to the case at hand. He urged that the insurance policy was issued under the old Act i.e. Motor Vehicles Act 1939 and was valid from 22.4.1989 to 21.4.1990. He submitted that the Act of 1988 came into force w.e.f. 1.7.1989.

8. He referred to the saving clause under Section 217 of the Act of 1988 in order to buttress his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document