FAO No. 826 of 1986 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 826 of 1986 (O&M) Date of Decision : 3.5.2010 Miss Magha Mahajan (minor) through Sh. Ram Kishan Mahajan .......... Appellant Versus State of Punjab & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. N.S. Virk, Addl. A.G. Punjab. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 7837-CII of 2007 For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed. Delay in filing the application for recalling the order dated May 4, 2005 is condoned. C.M. No. 7837-CII of 2007 For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed. Order dated 4.5.2005 is recalled, and the main case is restored to its original number. FAO No. 826 of 1986 This appeal by the claimants is directed against the award dated 4.6.1986, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, FAO No. 826 of 1986 -2- Chandigarh, on a petition filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. On consideration of the evidence and the documents placed on record, the learned Tribunal accepted the plea of the appellant qua “no fault liability” only. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) along with proportionate costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition i.e. 2.1.1984 till the date of recovery, was awarded, which has been paid to the appellant. The only contention raised in support of this appeal, by the learned counsel for the appellant is, that the provisions regarding “no fault liability” has been amended, and “no fault liability” has been enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) in the case of death. The learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) under “no fault liability”, as amended provisions would apply retrospectively, to all the cases, which are pending. The learned Addl. A.G., Punjab, on the other hand, contends, that the award by the learned Tribunal was passed before amendment of the statute, which cannot be given retrospective effect. The appellant, therefore, is not entitled to any enhancement of the amount, as on the date of passing of the award, the compensation payable under “no fault liability”, in case of death, was Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) and not Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). On consideration, I find, that the dispute, is squarely covered FAO No. 826 of 1986 -3- by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Mosmi and another Vs. Ram Kumar and others (1991-2) PLR 349, wherein this Court was pleased to lay down, that the amended provisions of the Act, would also apply to the pending cases. The appeal being in continuation of the petition would amount to pendency of the proceedings. This Court again in the case of Raghbir Singh Vs. Tilak Raj 1999(1) RCR(Civil) 177, has been pleased to lay down as under :- “6. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that though the accident in this case had taken place on 9.2.1989 and at that time under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was payable in cases of “no fault liability” yet having regard to the provisions of Section 140(2) of the Act which came into force on 14.11.1994 and provides for a payment of Rs. 50,000/- on account of no fault liability in death cases, the appellant is also entitled to that much amount. In support of his submission learned counsel placed strong reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Smt. Mosmi and another v. Ram Kumar and others, 1991(2) P.L.R. 349 and another judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Smt. Sumitra Devi and others v. Danesh Kumar and others, 1997(1) P.L.R. 403: 1997(1) RCR(Civil) 693 (P&H). Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand relied upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Surinder Kaur v. Lakhbir Singh and others, P.L.R. 1995(3) 512 and contended that a FAO No. 826 of 1986 -4- claimant is entitled to that much amount which is admissible under the provisions of the Act in force at the relevant time. In the latter case, the question raised by learned counsel for the appellant herein did not find favour with the learned Single Judge.” In view of the settled law, referred to above, this appeal is allowed. The compensation under “no fault liability” is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). The respondents are directed to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only), within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the respondents fail to pay the enhanced amount within the stipulated period, then the claimant shall be entitled to interest on this amount @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 3.5.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE