Legislative amendments regarding liability limits in motor vehicle insurance are prospective and do not retroactively benefit parties to contracts formed before such amendments.

1. Heard Mr. C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 8.8.2000 passed by the MACT / 1st ADJ in Case No. 182 of 1994 whereby Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 38,696 as compensation to the petitioner - respondent, out of which a sum of Rs. 6,000 was apportioned as the liability of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., i.e., the respondent No. 2 while the remaining amount of Rs. 32,696 was to be paid by the present appellant.

3. The learned counsel for the parties have stated that as far as the appellant is concerned he has already deposited a sum of Rs. 16,000 as part of his liability in pursuance of the order passed by this court and the said amount has also been released in favour of the claimant. So also National Insurance Co. Ltd. has paid its liability of Rs. 6,000 to the claimant.

4. Mr. C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, has assailed the award primarily on two grounds.

5. It has been submitted that in terms of S.147 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, in sub-section (2) (b) the liability in respect of damage to any property is limited to a sum of Rs. 6,000 whereas in terms of the amendment which has been introduced in the in the year 2019, more specifically w.e.f. 9.8.2019, the aforesaid limit has been removed and as such in view thereof the appellant is entitled to the benefit and liability to pay the entire amount as awarded by the Tribunal should be fastened on the insurance company. The other limb of the submission of Mr. C.B. Pandey is that the award has been passed with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum which is on the higher side and it has been prayed that interest should be reduced to 6 per cent per annum.

6. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 - insurance company, has supported the award and has submitted that insofar as the change in law is concerned, the same has to take effect prospectively and it cannot be given the effect in order to benefit the appellant for the reason that it is a contractual matter and it can only have effect from the date of its enforcement.

7. It has further been submitted by Mr. Prasad that the request regarding the reduction in the rate of interest is also not justified since in the entire memo of appeal no ground to the aforesaid effect has been taken by the learned counsel for the appellant.

8. The court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the record.

9. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the above appeal are noted hereinafter first:
The claimant had instituted a petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act which was registered as Claim Petition No. 182 of 1994. It was pleaded that on 1.10.1994 at around 7 a.m. in the morning, a bus bearing No. URQ 686, which was being driven by Waqil Ahmad rashly and negligently without being mindful of his act, hit the shops of the claimant, as a result, the shops were damaged and for the aforesaid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was claimed as damages.

10. The written statement was filed by the insurance company and the general defences regarding the insurance of the bus and the valid licence of its driver were raised. The owner and the driver filed a joint written statement on 19.10.1998 and it was admitted that the bus bearing No. URQ 686 is owned by the opposite party No. 1 (appellant herein). It was also pleaded that on the date of the alleged accident, opposite party No. 2 (respondent No. 3 herein) possessed a valid and effective driving licence. Though it was also pleaded that the v