ORDER
B.M. Lal, J.
1. The appellant National Insurance Company has come up in appeal against the order impugned dated 1-8-1989 whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panna has awarded Rs. 25,000/- as ex gratia compensation invoking the provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act No. 59 of 1988) (hereinafter referred to as the Act No. 59 of 1988), to the claimants.
2. The short point involved in this appeal for decision is –
“Whether a change in law has to be taken into consideration retrospectively or prospectively in accidents claim cases?”
3. Short facts leading to this appear are as under :
Auto accident took place prior to the coming into force of Act No. 59 of 1988, attracting provisions for ex gratia payment to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- in case of death according to the provisions of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (now repealed).
4. However, this legal position has been changed after coming into force of Act No. 59 of 1988 in view of the provisions of Section 140 of the Act No. 59 of 1988, whereby the amount of ex gratia payment has been enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-.
5. The Claims Tribunal, Panna in the exercise of its jurisdiction Under Section 140 of Act No. 59 of 1988 granted ex gratia payment to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- to the claimants.
6. Learned counsel Shri P. D. Pathak for the appellant strenuously argued that any law is ordinarily prospective in its operation and if the legislature so intends that its operation will be retrospective, the same is required to be expressly provided for, and in the Act No. 59 of 1988 nowhere it has been provided that provisions of Section 140 will be retrospective. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal, Panna exceeded in its jurisdiction in awarding ex gratia payment applying the provisions of Section 140 of the Act No. 59 of 1988.
7. No doubt, bere reading of the provisions of Section 140 of the Act No. 59 of 1988 reveals that the legislature has not provided any provision so as to directly infer its retrospective operation. However, this is not all. Retrospective operation could also be inferred even by necessary implication of the language used in the Statute and the aims and objects of the enactment.
8. Provisions for no-fault-liability in the present Act have been enacted with an aim to extend quick and effective relief to the family in distress. Any such provision of the Statute which provides for payment of compensation on the principle of no-fault-liability, the intention of the legislature is to provide expeditious monetary help to the sufferers or his family and to promote social justice. .
9. In this background, if the provisions of Section 140 of the Act No. 59 of 1988 are looked into, retrospective operation appears to be clearly implicit, construed in the context where it occurs.
10. Besides this, change in law has to be taken into consideration in subsequent proceedings as well. Therefore, during the pendency of the Act No. 59 of 1988 came in force providing larger benefits to the victims or the family members of the victim, the same cannot be ignored while exercising jurisdiction of granting ex gratia compensation. See Laxmi Narayan Guin and Ors. v. Niranjan Modak, AIR 1985 SC 111, wherein it has been ruled that change in law pending appeal has to be taken into account.
11. In Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shantabai S. Dhume- and Ors., AIR 1987 Bom. 52, while interpreting provisions of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (now repealed) it was held that the provision is retrospective. Similarly the present provision appearing in the Act No. 59 of 1988 is also, being pari materia to the provisions of Section 92-A of the Repealed Act, has got retrospective operation in awarding compensation.
12. From the discussions aforesaid provisions of Section 140 of the Act No. 59 of 1988 providing no-fault-liability has got retrospective operation and the Trial Court has not exceeded in its jurisdiction in awarding ex gratia compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-.
13. Consequently the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.