M. A. No iii-72002 / / APPELLANTS :— . Smt. Mukt'a Bai, W/o. Late Chhotu Shudro, aged about 32 years. . Parmeshwar s/o. Late Chhotu Shudro, aged aout 10 years (student) . Prakash s/o Late Chhotu Shudro aged about 8 years (student) . Basant s/o. Late Chhotu Shudro, aged about 6 years (student). . Narayan s/o. Samo Makhul, aged about 70 years. . Yashodra Bai w/o. Narayan, aged about 65 years. llant No 2 to 4 are mmors ép esented by the1r own mother A e11ant No 1 - All are r/o. Village Pandaripani, Mohallaf - Dani - Munda, Police Station house & Tah.- Kunkuri, Dist. Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDANTS : 1'. Satyanarayan Gupta, s/o. Ram Prasad Gupta. igla . Ramesh Chandra s/o. Ram Prasad Gupta, aged about 40 r‘ years. 1b. Krishna Kumar Gupta, s/o. Ram Prasad Gupta, aged about 3 8 years. All are r/o. Village Bag Bahar, PJSH. Bag Bahar, Tah.— Kunkuri, Dist.— Jashpur (C.G.) . 2. Drigpal, s/o. Kamuram, Driver. R/o. Village Sahaspur, P.S.H. Pharsa Bahar, Tah.- Kunkuri, Dist.— Jashur (C.G.) . anwmyxahy b ’ e i , i) p \ MA‘ NO‘ 732 OF 2002 Smt. Mukra Bai 8r. others —Versus— Styallm‘ayan Gupta 85 others \ J U D G M E N T' post for a 1020012. i Sd/- ‘ Fakhruddm ‘ Judge ‘ MA. NO. 732 OF 2002 Smt. Mukta Bai £15 others —V€1‘SUS— ‘ Satyanarayan Gupta 8a others AppellantS by Smt. Meena ShaSfi‘i, Advocate. Respondént No.3 by Shri Prashant Mishray Advocate. Shri NIL Agarwal, Advocate appeared to a$sist the Court aS amicus curiae JUDGMENT BV Justice Fakm‘uddin. M 1» This appeal is against the award dated 5.7‘2f)00 passed in Ciaim Case No. 14/2002 whereby the Claims Tribunal though finding the legal heirs of the deceased entitled to get award of ‘no fault liability’ awarded only Rs. 25,000J— and the owner and insurance compan 7 were directed to pay jointly and severally only Rs. 25,000f—. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Mote? Vehicles Act, 1938 has been amended by Act No.54 e id under the provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 the amount. of no fault liability in the death eases by the use of motorvehicle has been enhanced \ . \’ \ ji‘om Rs. 25,000/— to Rs. 50,000j— and thetefore the Claims \ \ \ \ 92/ Tribunal has erred in law in awarding RS‘ 25,000f- to the appellants, 3, It is stated that after coming into farce of The Repealing and Amending Act, “2001 (Act No. 3O of 200 1) some of the Claims Tribunal have started awarding Re. 25,000/- towards award of no fault liability in the death cases by the use of motor vehic1e. As per the Act, 2Q01 the Amendment Act 1994- hae been repealed as a Whole but Section 4 of the Act, 200 1 is saving clause, which is quoted below: “4-. §ayingsn The repeal by this Act of any enactment shaii not affect any other enactment in which the repealed enactment has been applied, incorporated or referred 3o; and this Act shail nof affect the vaiidity, invalidity, ejjf‘ect or consequences of anything aiready done or suffered) or any right, title petigation or iiability already acquired, accrued or incurred or any remedy or proceeding in respect thereo}: or arty release or discharge of orfrom any debt, penaity, obiigatz'on, tiability; claim or demand or any indemnity already granted; or the proof of any past act or thing; nor shall this Act affect any principal or rule ofiaw, or estabiished jurisdiction; from or course of pieading) practice orprocedure, orexisting usage, custom, privilege restriction) exemption; qfdce or appointment) noaoimstandiag that the same respectively may have been in any manner a]?‘irmed or recognized or derived by, in orfrom any enactment hereby repealed; nor shall the repeal by this Act of any enactment revive or restore any jurisdiction) office; custom) liability; Q3 right, iitie, privilege, re3fn'c1‘z'on, exeption, usage, practice} procedure or other matter or thing not now ex3ting r 1'31 force 4. It is, however sumited that. Some misunderstanding bt has Em rep, after coming ino force Gf the Act, 2001‘ Shri : 7 ct t PraShant Mishra, learned counsel representing the Ineurance Compaay (Respondent. No.3) very fairly submitted that the Insurallce Company haS sought Eegal opinion in this regard and the legal opinion is that ‘aJl the ndments 331d ame Changes brought into force by, The Motor Vehicles {Amendment} Act of 1994 (Act Not 54 of 1994) and incorporated ino The Moof Vehicies Act of 1988 are still in t t force. 5. hri N.K.Agarwa1, Advocate present in the Court sought S permission to assist the Court and addressed the Court. He referred .to a decision reported in A . e wherein is held that: - “The gettemt object of a rpeating (2nd amending Act is stated in Halsbwy’s Laws ofEnglcmd; 2nd Edition) Vol.3};at p. 563, thus: “A statute Law Revision Act does not alter the tow) but simpiy strikes out certain enactments which have become unnecessmy. It invan‘ably contains eiaborate provisos. In Khuda Bux a). Manager; Caledonian Press; AIR I 954 Cal 484} Chaicravartta’, OJ neatly brings out the purpose and scope of such Acts, The teamed ChiefJustice says at p. \\‘-r.__\'\ 486: “Such Acts have no iegislative effect) but are \ \ \ m t o ER 1960 S.C 89 t Jethanand Betab Vs. Th State of Delhi) it e designed for editorial revision) being intended onZy to excise dead matter from the statute book and to reduce its volume, Mostly) ihey expurgate amending Acts} because having imparted the amendments to ihe main Acts; these Acts have served their purpose and have no further reason far fheir existence, At i‘z'mee; inconeistencies are aisa removed by repealing and amending Acts. The on£y objects of such Acts which in Engiand are sailed Statute Law Revision Actg, is Zegislatiue spring-cleaning and they are no? intended to make cmy change in fhe law. Even so) fhey are guarded by saving clauses drawn with elaborate carew.” It is therefore, Ciear that the main object of the 1 952 Act was only to strike out the unnecessary Acts and excise dead matter from the statute book it: order to lighten the burden of ever increasing spate of legislation and to remove confusion from the public mind. The object of the Repealing and Amending Act of 1952 was only to expurgate the amending Act of i949; aiong with sirniiar Acts; which had served its purpose. He submits that the alnendments made in the Motor Vehicles 1988 by the Act No.54 of 1994 have been saved by the saving Section 4 of the Act, 2001 and as such they are still operative and are in force. (z Shri Prashant Mishra, iearned counsel representing Respondent No.3 referred to a decision reported 111 AIR 1952 533C. 3 16 i Collector of Customs V. Sampathu Chettv) wherein it is held thatts gOn the other hand) the effect of incorporation is as stated by Vrett Lei in Ciarlce o. Bradlaugh, {I 881) 8 QED \ \ ,. 3 “Where a sfaiute is incorpcmted, by rejereyzce, into a second statute the i‘epeai of the first statute by a fhird does m: cgfect the second. " This is anaiogous :0, thaugh not identicai with the principie embodied in S‘ 6A of the General Clauses Act enacted to define the efect of repeals effected by :relveazmg and ameeding Acis which mns in ihese terms: ”6A. Where any Central Act 03‘ Regulation made after the commencement of this Act repeais any enactment by which the text of any Centrai Act or Reguiatton was amended by the express cmtsstmz; insertion er substitution of any matter, then; unless a different intention appears) the repeal shat! not affect the cotziinuance of any such amendment made by the enactment so repealed and in operation at the time of such repeal ” We say ‘not identicai’ because in the ciass of cases contemplated by Si 6A of the General Clauses Act, the function of the incorporatittg legislation is almost wholly to effect the incorporation and when that is accomplished, they die as it were a natural death which is formally effected by their repeat. In cases, however; dealt with by Brett LJ the legislation from which provisions are absorbed continue to retain their efficacy and usefulness arid their independent operation even after the incorporation is effected. ” ‘i. Shri Prashant Mishra referred to “Principles of Statutory Interptetation” written by Justice CLP‘Singh wherein it is opined “A distinction has also been drawn between a mere reference or citation of one statute into another and incorporation, In the former case as modificatioti repeal or re— enactment of the statute that is referred will also have effectfor £". the statute in which it is refewed; 23m in the latter case any change in the incorparated statute by way of ame‘radment Gr repeal has no repercussion on the incorporating statute. ” 8. Shri Mishra placed a copy of the latter received by hiln from the Reepondent No.3, which is quoted below: “We have received queries from various Regionai offices regarding the effect of Repealing anct Amenczing Act 2001 cm the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act I994. Vide Repealing and Amendizzg Act of 200} various Acts have been repealed and one of them is Motor Vehicle Ameudment Act 1994. There is a general miscoaceptiott amongst oui' offices that since Motor Vehicle Amendment Act E994 has been repealed, the amendments brought in the Motor Vehicies Act 1988 vide Act of 1994 have automatically gone, We have discussed'this issue with various advocates who are of the view that Repeal of Amendment Act of 1994 has not affected the amendments brought about vide said Act In this regard, we aiso took opinion from Sh. V.S.Chauhan advocate who has cianfied the position in his opinion vide his letter dated 25.2.2002 {copy enclosed for your perusal}. It may be'observed that vide Section 4 of Repealing and Amending Act,2001 all the amendments changes and provisions brought about by the Motor vehicles (Amendments) Act E994 have been eaved. In 3imple words all the amendments and changes brought into force by Motor (92v \ \ 1mg; Vshicies Amendments Act }994 are stiil in force and they are incorporated in the Lament Act iie. Moa‘or Vehicles Act I §88, ” Q 111 View of the discuseions made herein above, having heard learned counsel for the partiee alld coneidering the fame and Circumsmcee a11d the material availabie an record in ihe opinion of this Court the provisioes 0f The Motor Vehieies (Amendment) Ac: 1994 stand incorporated in the Original Act. in the reeult., the imgugned orcier passed by the Claime Tribunal is set-aside. It is directed that the Respendent N03 and the Owner Shall jointly 0r Severally pay Rs. 50,GOO/— towards award ef no fault liability to the appellant ifi‘rhin a period of one month from today faiiing which the amount shail carry interest at the rate of 9% p.111. The amount. if any already paid shall be adjusted. 10. A copy of this order be oircu1ated aniongst Motor Accideht Claime Tribunal through Dietrict Judges. J. Certified copy, as per Ruiee. ‘1‘ Sd/- 7", Fakhruddin Judge