PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. PATIALA, THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER versus KULWANT KAUR & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 967 · Decided: 23-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[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 
FEBRUARY 23, 2009 
[DR. ARlJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 : 
B 
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 
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 
can have no application in respect of a claim petition filed 
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 
(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 
G 
18.08.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryaha 
at Chandigarh in L.P:A. No. ~09of1986 and Review Application 
No. 1 of 2005 respectively .. 
K.K. Mohan, for the Appellant. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
H 
I 
~ 
, 
\. 
' 
\ 
• 
I 
' I 
t • 
I-
I 
.-
·' 
\ 
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 
that the view of the High Court is clearly unsustainable. The High E 
Court could not have directed the payment of R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.