Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1969 Supreme(All) 59

Allahbad High Court
LAKSHMIPRASAD
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Shanti Misra - Respondent
Decided On : 05/12/1969

Advocates:
P.C. Srimal, for Petitioners; R.N. Trivedi, for Opposite Parties.

A new statute of limitation is not to be given retrospective effect in the absence of express words in that behalf if it would have the effect of destroying the cause of action for which under the existing law of limitation obtaining till the date of the introduction of the new statute an action could be brought.

Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTIONS 110, 110-A, 110-F - JURISDICTION OF CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - LIMITATION - VESTED RIGHT OF ACTION - Retrospective effect cannot be given to provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (as amended) which provide for a different forum and a different period of limitation for claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, as it would prejudicially affect vested rights of action.
Fact of the Case:

A petition was filed challenging the jurisdiction of a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to entertain a claim arising out of an accident that occurred prior to its constitution. The petitioner argued that the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (as amended) could not be given retrospective effect as it would destroy the vested right of action of the claimant.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (as amended) could not be given retrospective effect as it would prejudicially affect vested rights of action. The court observed that a new statute of limitation is not to be given retrospective effect in the absence of express words in that behalf if it would have the effect of destroying the cause of action for which under the existing law of limitation obtaining till the date of the introduction of the new statute an action could be brought.
Issues: Whether the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (as amended) could be given retrospective effect.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that a new statute of limitation is not to be given retrospective effect in the absence of express words in that behalf if it would have the effect of destroying the cause of action for which under the existing law of limitation obtaining till the date of the introduction of the new statute an action could be brought. The court also noted that the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (as amended) did not contain any express words indicating that they were to be given retrospective effect.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed and the impugned order was quashed. The court directed that the Claims Tribunal shall not proceed with the claim of the opposite parties.

ORDER :- This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The facts of the case leading to this petition may briefly be summarised as below. Amar Nath Misra husband of opposite party No. 1 and father of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 met with an accident on 11th September, 1966 at about 8.30 P.M. on Unnao-Kanpur Road while he was on a scooter. One Kartar Singh was also seated on the scooter. He escaped with injuries but Amar Nath Misra died as a result of the injuries soon after. The accident occurred as a truck collided with his scooter. A report of the occurrence was lodged by one Ram Gopal same day at 9.05 p.m. at Gangaghat police station. It was stated in the report that the number of the truck could not be noted and it was not known who drove the truck and who was the owner thereof. By a Notification published in the U.P. Gazette dated 18th March, 1967 the State Government constituted a Tribunal (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) under sub-section (1) of Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Opposite party No. 2 filed another report on 22nd April, 1967 stating therein that such and such truck owned by petitioner No. 2 driven by petitioner No. 3 and insured with petitioner No. 1 had caused the aforesaid accident dated 11th September, 1966 resulting in the death of the informant's father, Amar Nath Misra. Thereafter on 8th July, 1967 a claim was filed by opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 claiming a sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation but it was not on a prescribed form. Subsequently on 17th April, 1969 a similar claim was filed on a prescribed form. The petitioners appeared before the Tribunal and took an objection that it had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim in respect of an accident which took place earlier than the date of its constitution. The tribunal opposite party No. 4 rejected that objection by an order dated 12th September, 1968 a certified copy of which is filed as annexure 4 to the petition. The present petition is directed against the aforesaid order annexure 4 and the prayer is that the same be quashed for the reason that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim in respect of an accident which took place prior to its constitution. It is also prayed that mandamus may issue to opposite party No. 4 not to proceed with the claim of opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 a true copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 on whose behalf a counter-affidavit sworn by opposite party No. 2 has been filed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 at some length. As already stated the only point that requires determination in the case is if or not the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is competent to entertain a claim in respect of an accident taking place prior to its constitution. There is no gain-saying the fact that unless expressed otherwise a procedural law is retrospective in the sense that it governs all the actions to be initiated since after its enactment regardless of the dates of the causes of action on which such actions are founded. In this connection I may refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Anant Gopal Sheorey v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 915 contained in paragraph 4 of the report-

"There is no controversy on the general principles applicable to the case. No person has a vested right in any course of procedure. He has only the right of prosecution or defence in the manner prescribed for the time being by or for the Court in which the case is pending and if by an Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered he has no other right than to proceed according to the altered mode......... In other words a change in the law of procedure operates retrospectively and unlike the law relating to vested right is not only prospective."

So, it is unnecessary to refer to other decided cases of different High Courts cited at the Bar for the proposition that there is no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1969 Supreme(All) 59

Allahbad High CourtLAKSHMIPRASADThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - AppellantVersusShanti Misra - RespondentDecided On : 05/12/1969

Allahbad High Court
LAKSHMIPRASAD
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Shanti Misra - Respondent
Decided On : 05/12/1969