Per Mathur, C.J. and Misra, J. -- 1. This is a reference made by learned Single Judge arising out of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The following question has been referred by learned...Single Judge for answer by the Full Bench :-

"Whether section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is retrospective in operation for the reason section 144 there of expressly says that -- "the provisions of this chapter shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force ?"

2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this reference are -The Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (Link Korba), District Bilaspur awarded to respondents Rs. 25,000/- plus interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 10.4.1989, i.e., from the date of filing application. One Hirabai, widow of Mahadeo, died on 20-10-1987 as a result of motor accident. Therefore, the respondents filed a claim under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act of 1939). They moved an application under section 92-A of the Act of 1939 read with section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act of 1988) claiming compensation for no fault liability at the rate of Rs. 25,000/-. The Claims Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for no fault liability' in accordance with section 140 of the Act of 1988.

3. Aggrieved by the grant of award, an appeal was preferred before this Court and it was contended that the claimants are only entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- under section 92-A of the Act of 1939 and not for Rs. 25,000/- under section 140 of the Act of 1988. It was submitted before the learned single Judge that section 140 of the Act of 1988 is not retrospective in operation and, therefore, it will not cover the accidents which occurred prior to the Act of 1988. It was contended that by virtue of section 217 of the Act of 1988, all proceedings pending under the Act of 1939 were saved by the aforesaid provision and it shall be deemed that Act of 1988 was not passed so far as the old proceedings are concerned. Learned single Judge made reference of cases of Prakash Chandumal Khatri and another v. Suresh Pahilajraj Makhija and another. 1992 ACJ 369, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlabai and another, AIR 1990 MP 354 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Haldwani v. Dhanram Singh and others, AIR 1990 All. 104. As against this, it was submitted before the learned single Judge that the provisions of the Act of 1988 are retrospective in operation because of section 144 of the Act of 1988 as It has overriding effect on existing law. Therefore, it was submitted that in view of section 217 of the Act of 1988 which incorporates section 6 of the General Clauses Act by reference as provided by sub-section (4) of section 217, the existing law for the pending proceedings would be the Act of 1939. But the wordings of section 144 of the Act of 1988 are to the effect that they have overriding effect over every other law including the existing law. Hence, it was contended that Chapter-X bearing section 144 of the Act of 1988 will have retrospective operation and in support of this reliance was placed on the cases of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Padmavathy and others. 1990 ACJ 751 (Kerala), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Thankam, 1995 ACJ 440 (Kerala), Ouseph v Antony and others, 1990 ACJ 57 (Kerala), Kamta Prasad and another v. Jaggan & Co. Ltd. and another, 1996 ACJ 872 (SC) 57 (Allahabad), MK. Kunhimohammad v: P.A. Ahmedkutty and others 1987 ACJ 872 (SC) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Chander Dwivedi and others. 1991 ACJ 577 (Delhi). In this connection, reference was also made to the decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gangabai and others. 1991 ACJ 840, wherein a view was taken that section 140 of the Act of 1988 is prospective and not retrospective. As against this, another decision of this Court given in the case of Nation Insurance