AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.M. Lal, J.—This appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is filed by the Appellant/non-claimant against an interim award passed u/s 92-A of the Act on 29.1.1983.
The only contention raised by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant is that Section 92-A of the Act has been introduced by the Amendment Act of 1982 on 1.10.1982 and is, therefore, operative with effect from 1.10.1982 being prospective in nature and not retrospective one.
In the light of the facts of the instant case, the Learned Counsel submitted that the alleged accident took place on 23.8.1979 when provisions of Section 92-A of the Act were not in existence, therefore, the interim award passed u/s 92-A of the Act by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents supported the impugned interim award.
After hearing the rival contentions this Court has reached the conclusion that this appeal has no force and must be dismissed.
Whether a particular provision has got prospective or retrospective effect is to be considered by the particular provision, looking to its history as to how and why that provision has been introduced. If the provisions of Section 92-A of the Act are tested with the abovesaid touchstone, it will be seen that the said provisions have been introduced to give immediate and effective relief to the victims of road accidents. Thus, the provisions of Section 92-A of the Act are beneficial piece of social legislation. Further, to know whether a particular piece of legislation or a particular provision in an Act has got retrospective or prospective effect, the courts are expected to take into account the change in law and accordingly to extend such benefits to the concerned parties in pending matters. This view is fortified by the view expressed by the apex court of the land in Lakshmi Narayan Guin and Others Vs. Niranjan Modak, .
In Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Company Ltd. v. Shantabai S. Dhume 1987 ACJ 198 (Bombay), it has been held that the provisions of Section 92-A of the Act have got a retrospective effect and in a pending matter, the Tribunal or the court may take into consideration the effect of the provisions and accordingly interim award may be awarded. In Chunnilal v. Ram Akhtyar Singh Misc. Appeal No. 81 of 1983; decided on 7.8.1987, this Court has taken the view that this provision of Section 92-A of the Act has got retrospective effect.
This being so, the Tribunal has not committed any error in interpreting the provisions of Section 92-A of the Act having retrospective operation and in awarding the interim award.
From the discussion aforesaid, this appeal has no substance and it is dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 500/- , if certified.