The provisions of amended section 140(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, can be made applicable to accidents occurring before the amendment but after the enactment of the Act, considering the intention of the legislature to enhance the amount of compensation to be paid under the head of no fault liability in death cases.

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. Mr. Malik submits that in the impugned order the learned claims Tribunal has admitted that Gulshan Kumar died on December 3, 1991, in a vehicular accident. Respondent No. 1 - Dinesli Kumar was driving the offending scooter. He has admitted the accident. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited has also admitted that the said offending vehicle was insured with it. Hence the claimants are entitled to compensation under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , on account of no fault liability. The claim petition was dismissed Gulshan Kumar was negligent in driving his vehicle.

2. Mr. Malik relied on Smt. Kailash Kumari v. Bhola, (1988-1)93 P.L.R. 116; Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Beasa Devi, (1985-1)87 P.L.R. 59 and Rawat Singh v. Sube Singh, (1995-1)100 P.L.R. 539.

3. In Smt, Kailash Kumaris case (supra) it is held that when such a application is filed in appeal, since appeal is re-hearing of the claim, such an application can be allowed. In that case also application filed under section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , was allowed in appeal.

4. In Smt. Beasa Devis case (supra) a Division Bench of the High Court has held that under section 92-A of the old Act, the Insurance Company is liable if the accident of the vehicle of the owner is admitted or proved and the Tribunal comes to a further prima facie conclusion that the vehicle was insured.

5. In this case it is admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3. The accident is also admitted by respondent No. 1. Hence in my considered view the claimants are entitled to get compensation under no fault liability.

6. The last point for consideration is whether the provisions of amended section 140(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, can be made applicable in this case, because deceased Gulshan Kumar died in this vehicular accident on December 3, 1991, and section 140 of the new Act is amended with effect from November 14, 1994, whereby the figure "40" is substituted by "50" in sub-section (2) of section 140 of the new Act.

7. In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, (1987)3 SCC 234, the Apex Court has observed that latter specific statute if provides for broader new right of action, then it would prevail over the former one.

8. In M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutt, (1987-2)92 P.L.R. 689 (S.C.) the Supreme Court lamented and suggested that the amount under section 92-A of 1939 Act is unrealistic to inflationary pressures and consequent loss of purchasing power of rupee. These figures are inadequate and should be increased in an appropriate manner. The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, came into force on Objects and Reasons of this Amendment Bill it becomes apparent that the Parliament took into consideration the observations made by the Apex Court in M.K Kunhimohammeds case (supra). It is mentioned in the Bill that the Supreme Court in this Judgment "has made certain suggestions to raise the limit of compensation payable as a result of motor accidents in respect of death and permanent disablement in the event of there being no proof of fault on the part of the person involved in the accident and also in hit and run motor accidents and to remote certain disparities in the liability of the insurer to pay compensation depending upon the class or type of vehicles involved in the accident. The above suggestions made by the Supreme Court have, been incorporated in the Bill". In the Bill it is further mentioned that important provisions are provided in the matters enumerated therein. Its clause (i) reads as under:-

"(i) provisions for enhanced compensation in case of "no fault liability" and in "hit and run" motor accidents;"

9. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjali Mallick and Ors., 1993 ACJ 934 (Cal.) a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court held that section 140 of the Act is beneficial legislation enacted with a view to confer the benefit of expeditious