Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended by Act 47 of 1982, and Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which replaced Section 92-A, do not have retrospective effect.

The Judgment was delivered by :

The appellants herein are the claimants. They are the widow and children of the deceased-Mohamed Rasul.

2. The deceased was working as Sub-Inspector of Police in District Crime Branch at Cuddalore. On 19-8-1984, at about 3.30 p.m. he was riding on the motor-cycle bearing registration No. MSQ 8509 and proceeding towards Panruti. All of a sudden, when he was nearing the Naththamedu Main Road, another motor-cycle bearing registration No. MSR 6754, driven by one Thandavamurti, third respondent herein, came in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly, took a right turn for crossing towards Naththamedu Road, even without giving any signal. Due to this, both the vehicles got collided with each other. The deceased and the motor-cycle were thrown out. He sustained a serious head injury and died after an hour. The said Thandavamurti, driver of the another motor-cycle also sustained injuries. PW 4, Hanifa was the pillion rider in the vehicle driven by the deceased-Mohmad Rasul. The motor-cycle which was driven by the deceased belonged to one Sathar, who is the first respondent herein. The motor-cycle which was driven by the said Thandavamurti, the third respondent herein, belonged to Umapathi, the fourth respondent herein.

3. Thandavamurti, for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, filed a petition in O.P. No. 179 of 1985 claiming compensation of Rs. 80,000/-. The appellants-claimants, legal representatives of the deceased-Rasul, filed a petition in O.P. No. 543 of 1985 claiming Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased, due to the accident.

4. The Tribunal, in the common enquiry, examined the witnesses produced by both the parties by making them as PWs 1 to 5 and the documents filed in support of them were marked as Exs. A-1 to A-22.

5. Though each party put the blame against each other, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that the deceased-Rasul was negligent and consequently, held that the legal representatives of the deceased would not be entitled to any compensation, but the Thandavamurti would be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 27,600/- as against the total compensation of Rs. 80,000/- claimed. Even though the Tribunal assessed the amount of compensation of Rs. 70,000/- for the legal representatives of the deceased, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the legal representatives of the deceased on the ground that no negligence could be attributed to Thandavamurti, and the deceased-Rasul alone was negligent. Hence, the legal representatives of the deceased-Rasul, being the claimants, have challenged the judgment impugned, before this Court, by raising various contentions.

6. According to the counsel for the appellants, the evidence of PW 4, the pillion rider, had not been considered by the Tribunal in the proper perspective and his evidence would really show that the accident took place because of the sudden right turn taken by the said Thandavamurti, third respondent herein, who was examined as PW 1 or otherwise, the accident would not have occurred and that therefore, the Tribunal should have held that the claimants would be entitled to compensation for the death of the deceased. At the end of the arguments, he would submit that the Tribunal committed a grave error by not awarding any amount of compensation, at least on the ground of "no fault" liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

7. Though notice was served on the other side, nobody entered appearance on behalf of respondents.

8. Since the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that even assuming as per the finding given by the Tribunal that the deceased alone was negligent, the claimants would be entitled for compensation towards 'no fault liability', let us now consider the said submission before going into the credibility of the evidence adduced by the claimants in the present case. Mr. Ranganathan, the learned counsel who is present in the Court, has been nominated as a