Holding

The quantum of "no‑fault liability" is determined prospectively; the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not apply to claims filed before its commencement, and the payable amount is Rs 15,000 under the 1939 Act.

Summary

An accident occurred on 15‑10‑1982 and a claim petition was filed on 30‑11‑1982. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, but the Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed it, relying on Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended on 14‑11‑1994) and directing a payment of Rs 50,000 as "no‑fault liability" on the basis that the provision operated retrospectively. The appellant, PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the 1988 Act could not apply to a claim filed before its commencement and that statutory provisions on liability are prospective, not retrospective. Consequently, the quantum of liability was fixed at Rs 15,000 under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 92A, and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended) to a claim petition filed before the Act came into force.
Whether the amendment introducing "no‑fault liability" operates retrospectively.
The correct quantum of "no‑fault liability" payable for a claim filed in 1982.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 92A
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 140

Subjects

Motor Vehicles Actno‑fault liabilityretrospective effectstatutory interpretationquantum of damagesMotor Accidents Claims TribunalSection 140Section 92A

Judgment

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 967

PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. PATIALA, A
THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER
v.
KULWANT KAUR & ORS.
Civil Appeal No. 1157 of 2009
B
FEBRUARY 23, 2009
[DR. ARlJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 :
c
s.140 - No fault liability - Accident on 15-10-1982 -
Claim petition on 30-11-1982 - Order passed by MACT - -
Appeal -High Court placed reliance upon s. 140 of the 1998
Act as amended w.e.f 14-11-1994 and after taking the view
that the amended provision operated with retrospective effect, 0
' directed payment of Rs. 50, 0001- as "no fault liability" -
· Justification of- Held: Not justified - High Court was wrong in
its view about the retrospective operation of s. 140 - In any
event, the 1988 Act can have ho application in respect of a
claim petition filed on 30-11-1982 and decided by MACT on E
16-7-1984 - On facts, quantum of liability fixed at Rs.15,0001
- Motor Vehicles Ac( 1939 - s. 92A.
The present appeal concerns a claim petition filed
.i: on 30-11-1982 in respect of an accident that took place
on 15-10-1982. F
In appeal against the order passed by the Motor ·
Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), the High Court placed
reliance upon s.140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 as
amended w.e.f. 14-11-1994 and after taking the view that
the amended provision operated with retrospective effect, G
... directed payment of Rs. 50,000/- as "no fault liabiUty". The
quantum of liability fixed by the High Court is challenged
in the present appeal.

967 H
\.
'
\

968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The amount payable under the old Motor
Vehicle Act i.e. the·Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was Rs.15,000/-
Subsequently, it was raised to Rs.50,000/-. By amendment
Act no.47of1982 in the old Act operative with effect from
8
1.10.1982, s.92-A was introduced, making provision for
"no faulty. liability". The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was
enacted on 14.10.1988, but became operative with
effective from 1.7.1989. In the 1988 Act, the amount
payable was Rs.25,000/- as no fault liability. The amount
C was raised to Rs.50,000/- by amendment operative with
effect from 14.11.1994. [Para 6] (970-B]
2. At the relevant point .of time the quantum of
Rs.15,000/- appears to have been paid. The High Court's
D view about retrospective operation is contrary to what has • I
I
been stated in R.L Gupta's case, wherein it was held that
the ,quantum of liability is. provided by the Statute
prospectively. In any event, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
'I
can have no application in respect of a claim petition filed t
on 30.11.1982 and decided by MACT on 16.7.1984. The •
E amount shall be Rs. tS,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/"' as
.directed by the Tribunal. (Paras 7, 8] [970-D; 970-E}
Case Law Reference
~
I-
(1990) 1 sec 355 · rrelied on Para 7
F
CIVILAPPELLATE JU.RISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1157
of 2009
From the Judgement and Order~dated 07.09.2005 and
18.08.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryaha
G at Chandigarh in L.P:A. No. ~09of1986 and Review Application I

.-
No. 1 of 2005 respectively.. ,
·' \

K.K. Mohan, for the Appellant.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
H e
r
PEPSU ROAD TRANS. CORPN. PATIALA, THROUGH ITS 969
GEN. MAN. V KULWANT KAUR & ORS.

.,, DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J . A

1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
Single Judge o.f the Punjab and .Haryana High Court allowing
the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 Kulwant Kaur. An 8
application for review of the judgment was also dismissed. By
the impugned judgment a Latest Patent appeal filed against
the judgment of a learned Single Judge affirming the judgment
of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short the 'MACT') was
affirmed. The MACT has dismissed the claim petition on the c
ground that there was no evidence to show any loss of
dependency. The claimant's lawyer in the appeal before the High
Court took the stand that the claim was restricted to Rs.50,000/
- as no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). · D
3. The appeal filed by the _claimant was allowed. Review
application filed on the ground that Rs.50,000/- was not payable,
was rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted
E
that the view of the High Court is clearly unsustainable. The High
Court could not have directed the payment of Rs.50,000/- as
"no fault liability''. The High Court appears. to have taken the
.I view that the provision of Section 1·40 of the Act operate with
retrospective effect.
F
.5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in
spite of service of notice.
6. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :
·An incident took place on 15.10.1982. The Act came into G
~
operation with effect from 14.10.1988 and the relevant provision
was amended on 14.11.1994. The question is the date from
which the Section 92(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
(hereinafter referred to as "Old Act") operates and whether· it
' operates with retrospective effect.
H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A The High Court was of the view that that has retrospective
operation.
The amount payable under old Act was Rs.15,000/-.
Subsequently, it was raised to Rs.50,000/-. By amendment Act
no.47of1982 in the old Act operative with effect from 1.19.1982,
8
Section 92-A was introduced, making provision for "no faulty
liability". The Act was enacted on 14.10."1988, but became
operative with effective from 1.7.1989. In the Act, the amount
·payable was Rs.25,000/- as no fault liability. The amount was
raised to Rs.50,000/- by amendment operative with effect from
c 14.11.1994.
7. In R.L. Gupta v. Jupital General Insurance Co. [1990(1)
sec 355] it was held the quantum of liability is provided by the
Statute prospectively. At the relevant point of time the quantum
D of Rs.15,000/- appears to have been paid. The High Court's
(
view about retrospective operation is contrary to what has been
stated in R.L. Gupta's case (supra). In any event, Act can have
no application in respect of a claim petition filed on 30.11.1982
and decided by MACTon 16:7.1984.
E 8. Above being the ,position the appeal deserves to be
allowed, which we direct. The amount shall be Rs.15,000/- 1

·~
instead of Rs.50,000/- as directed by the Tribunal.
...
9. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. )

s.e.s. Appeal. allowed.
.. 1'\