STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. versus BHAJAN KAUR & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 1111 · Decided: 08-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 7 S.C.R. 1111 
,~ 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
A 
v. 
BHAJAN KAUR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3406 of 2008) 
MAY 8, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 
s. 140 - Held:'Does not have retrospective effect- Motor c 
Vehicles Act, 1939 - s. 92-A. 
Interpretation of statutes: 
Prospective or Retrospective effect of a statute - Held: 
Statute is presumed to be prospective unless held to be 
retrospective either expressly or by necessary implication -
D 
s. 6 of General Clauses Act not applicable - ff new Act confers 
a right, it does so with prospective effect unless expressly stated 
otherwise - General Clauses Act - s. 6. 
Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, s.92-A provided E 
for payment of a sum of Rs.15,000/- by way of no fault 
liability. It was raised to Rs.25,000/- by reason of s.140 of 
the 1988 Act and with effect from 14.11.1994, tbe quantum 
of amount payable was raised to Rs.50,000/-. The question 
for consideration in the present appeal is whether s.140 
F 
would have retrospective effect. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. S.140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not 
have retrospective effect. [Paras 8, 27] [1114-G, 1124-A] 
G 
2. A statute is presumed to be prospective unless 
·• 
"'· 
held to be retrospective, either expressly or by necessary 
implication. A substantive law is presumed to be 
prospective. It is one of the facets of rule of law. S. 92-A of 
1111 
H 
1112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
· [2008] 7 S.C.R. 
.. 
A the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 created a right and a liability 
on the owner of the vehicle. It is a statutory liability. Per se 
it is not a tortuous liability. Where a right is created by an 
enactment, in absence of a clear provision in the statute, 
it is not to be applied retrospectively. [Para 9] [1115-8,C] 
B 
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Padmavathy and 
..L 
others (1990) ACJ 751; M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. 
Ahmedkutty AIR 1987 SC 2158 - overruled. 
3. The rights and liabilities of the parties are 
c determined when cause of action for filing the claim 
petition arises. The liability under the Act is a statutory 
liability. The liability could, thus, be made retrospective 
only by reason of a statute or statutory rules. It was 
required to be so stated expressly by the Parliam~nt. [Para 
D 13] [1116-H, 1117-A] 
4. Reference to s.6 of the General Cle-uses Act is 
misplaced. S.217 of the 1988 Act contains the repeal and 
saving clause. 5.140 of the 1988 Act does not find place 
in various clauses contained in Sub-section (2) of s.217 
E of the 1988 Act. 5.6 of the General Clauses Act, saves a 
right accrued and/ or a liability incurred. It does not create 
a right. When s.6 applies, only an existing right is saved 
thereby. The existing right of a party has to be determined 
on the basis of the statute which was applicable and not 
F under the new one. If a new Act confers a right, it does so 
with prospective effect when it comes into force, unless 
expressly stated otherwise. S.140 of the 1988 Act does 
not contain any procedural provision so as to construe it 
to have retrospective effect. It cannot enlarge any right. 
G Rights of the parties are to be determined on the basis of 
the law as it then stood, viz., before the new Act come 
into force. [Paras 14, 16] [1117-C, 1118-A,8] 
>- •
5. It is now well-settled that a change in the 
substantive law, as opposed to adjective law, would not 
H affect the pending litigation unless the legislature has 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. BHAJAN KAUR & ORS. 
1113 
f 
[S.S. SINHA, J] 
enacted otherwise, either expressly or by necessary A 
implication.[Para 17] [1118-C] 
Garikapati v. Subbaiah Chowdhary AIR 1957 SC 540; 
Gajraj Singh and Others v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal 
and Others (1997) 1 SCC 650; Ramesh Singh and Another v. 
B 
Cinta Devi and Others (1996) 3 SCC 142; Zile Singh v. State 
of Haryana (2004) 8 SCC 1; Lohia Machines Ltd. and Anr v. 
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (1985) 2 SCR 686; Mis. Indian 
Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. & Anr v. State of Orissa & Ors. 
(1987) 3 SCC 189; Madishetti Bala Ramu/ (0) by LRs. v. The c 
Land Acquisition Officer (2007) 8 SCALE 184; Ashok Lanka 
and Anr v. Rishi Oixit and Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 598; Southern 
Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector & ETIO 
and Others (2007) 5 SCC 447- referred to. 
-~ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDCTION : Civil Appeal No. D 
3406 of 2008. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 29.8.2007 of the High 
Court o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.