FAO No. 1304 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1304 of 1993 Date of decision 8.2.2010. Partej Kumar versus Balvinder Singh and others Present : Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for Insurance Company. K.C.PURI. J. This appeal has been directed by the claimant for setting aside the Award and for grant of compensation. The case of the claimant is that he received injuries in a motor vehicular accident. The Tribunal after adjudication came to the conclusion that accident has taken place due to negligence of the claimant and consequently, the claim petition was accepted to the extent of Rs.7500/- on account of permanent disability alongwith interest under Section 92-A of Code of Civil Procedure under no fault liability. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the finding of the Tribunal. However, he has submitted that an amount of Rs.7500/- has been granted to the appellant under no fault liability. It is submitted that an FAO No. 1304 of 1993 2 amount of Rs.25,000/- should have been granted to the appellant keeping in view Section 140 of the amended Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. To support this contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon authority Smt. Dhanpati Devi vs. Shri Gurbachan Lal & Ors. 2007(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 808 and Raghbir Singh vs. Tilak Raj 1998 (3) P.L.R. 570. I have carefully considered the said submissions but the same are meritless. The accident in the present case, has taken place on 30.7.1987. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into operation from 1.7.1989. Under the old Act of 1939, the amount of compensation under Section 92-A in respect of permanent disability was Rs.7500/- which was enhanced to Rs.25,000/-vide amendment dated 14.11.1994. In authorities Smt. Dhanpati Devi and Raghbir Singh cases (supra), the Single Bench of this Court held that since the Motor Vehicles Act is a welfare Legislation and as such Section 140 of the Act which enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.25,000/- in respect of permanent disability or death would be made applicable retrospectively. However, this view cannot be accepted in view of authority Pepsu road Transport Corporation, Patiala vs. Kulwant Kaur and others (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 32. In this authority, while dealing with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that Section 140 of the Act cannot be made applicable to the accidents arisen prior to 1.7.1989 as the operation of the Act can only be prospective and not retrospective. The Hon'ble Apex Court has relied upon authority R.C.Gutpa vs. Jupitor General Insurance Co.(1990) 1 SCC- 140, wherein it has been FAO No. 1304 of 1993 3 held that liability of Insurance Company prescribed by Statute shall be prospective and not retrospective. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE February 08, 2010 sv