IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.623 of 1991(O&M) Date of Decision 25.11.2009 Ram Singh ...... Appellant VERSUS Jagpal Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.H.S.Gill, Senior Advocate with Mr.R.K.Dhiman, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms.Mamta Singla Talwar, A.A.G.,Haryana, for respondents No.2and 3. Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.4-Insurance Company. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This appeal for enhancement is directed against the award dated 04.01.1991, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (herein referred as 'the Tribunal') awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.12000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum in favour of the claimant-appellant and against the respondents jointly and severally on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident. From the evidence of Jagpal Singh RW-4, driver of Haryana Roadway Bus, as led before the Tribunal, it transpires that a truck was going ahead of scooter over which Ram Singh and Anil Kumar were travelling. Due to sudden applications of the brakes by the truck driver, the scooter struck at the back of the truck and resultantly, the driver and pillion rider of scooter fell down. In the meantime, a bus came from the opposite side and crushed the scooter. Since the claimant was also dragged, therefore, he suffered injuries. The evidence reveals that the scooter fell down and the bus came par chance from the opposite side. Respondent No.1 Jagpal Singh had no opportunity to see the falling scooter and its riders, as such negligence is not proved at all. Consequently, it would be safely conclude that the Tribunal was right in awarding no fault liability to the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that though on account of amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act regarding no fault FAO No.623 of 1991(O&M) -2- liability, the claimant-appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.12,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment delivered in case Smt.Mosmi and another versus Ram Kumar and others 1991 (2) P.L.R. 349 wherein it was observed as under:- “Since the 1988 Act came into force after the date of accident, the Tribunal held that the claimants-appellants shall be entitled to the compensation of Rs.15,000/- only under the old Act. The claimants have come in appeal to this Court on the plea that although the accident had taken place prior to the coming into force of 1988 Act yet under the no fault liability, the claimants are entitled to Rs.25,000/- as has been provided under the 1988 Act. The plea taken by the counsel appearing for the Insurance Company is that the provisions of 1988 Act are prospective and not retrospective in nature. We do not find any substance in the submission made by the counsel appearing for the respondents. Section 144 of the 1988 Act provide that all other provisions of 1988 Act or say other law must yield to the provisions contained in Chapter X of the 1988 Act. The matter has been considered at length by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Padamavathy and it has been held therein that award for no fault liability in a motor accident which occurred prior to the coming into force of 1988 Act should be in tune with the amount fixed by the 1988 Act. We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given by the Kerala High Court and adopt the same. For the foregoing discussion, this appeal is partly accepted and it is held that the claimant-appellant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- under “no fault liability” clause of 1988 Act. The impugned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is accordingly modified and the compensation is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. No costs. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 25.11.2009 mamta-II