Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents nos. 1, 2 & 3.

(2). This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.1.1997 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in claim case no. 216/95 filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(3). The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal was not justified in giving the impugned judgment as the application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not maintainable. The ground on which the above submission is made is that Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was added by an amendment which came into force on 14.11.1994 whereas the accident resulting in the death of Jagdish occurred on 6.6.1994.

(4). The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

(5). It appears that an application under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by Shri Mehtab Bai, Ramesh and Sushri Sita (respondents nos. 1, 2 & 3), with the prayer that compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,88,500/- be awarded to them. According to the averments made in the claim petition, the deceased Jagdish was working as a Conductor on the bus no. RPJ- 6667. On the date of accident, he was getting a salary of Rs. 2,100/- per month. On 6.6.1994, at about 3.30 p.m., when the deceased Jagdish was opening the side windows of the bus, the driver drove the bus rashly and negligently and as a consequence Jagdish fell on the road and died. The claim petition was contested by the United India Insurance Co.Ltd. (non- petitioner no.3) as well as by the non-petitioner no.2. As many as four issues were framed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. No separate issue was framed regarding the alleged rashness and negligence committed by the driver in driving the bus.

(6). The claimants examined Smt. Mehtab Bai, AW-1 and Kailash, AW-2. Some documents were produced in evidence and they were exhibited. No evidence was produced on behalf of the non- petitioners. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties awarded a sum of Rs. 2,32,500/- to the claimants and this sum was made payable by the non-petitioners nos. 2 and 3 who were held by the Tribunal jointly and severally responsible for the payment of compensation. A perusal of the impug- ned judgment passed by the Tribunal shows that the petition filed by the claimants under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was treated as petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and, therefore, the learned Tribunal dispensed with the necessity of proving the alleged rashness and negligence in driving the bus.

(7). In view of the above facts and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, three questions arises for the decision of this appeal:-

(1) Whether the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were applicable to the claim petition filed by the respondents 1,2 and 3 ?

(2) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in treating the petition filed by the respondents nos. 1, 2 and 3 as a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? and;

(3). what order should be passed in order to do justice to the parties?

(8). Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was added by the Act No. 54 of 1994 which came into force on 14.11.1994. The accident in the instant case occurred on 6.6.1994. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has no retrospective application. His argument is that Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 creates a separate and new liability and new rights in favour of the claimants and, therefore, unless the Section can be said to have been made retrospectively applicable, it should be held that Section has no retrospective application. The general principle on which reliance has been led by the learned counsel for the ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document