ORDER
P.S. Narayan, J.
1. The matter came up for admission before this Court and with the
consent of all the parties the main CMA itself is being disposed of.
2. Heard Mrs. Bhaskara Laxmi, Counsel representing the appellant-third respondent, Sri Ravikumar Toleti, Counsel representing the respondents-claimants and Sri A. Rangacharyulu and Sri R. Venkataram, Counsel representing the other respondents.
3. The short question raised in the present CMA is that under no fault liability where the accident occurred on 5-5-1993 prior to the Amending Act, the compensation amount to be granted is Rs. 50,000/- or Rs. 25,000/- ? Except this question no other aspect had been canvassed before this Court by the respective Counsel representing the parties, Respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal are the petitioners in MVOP No. 108 of 1994 on the file of the Chairman-cum-III Additional District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada and they filed the aforesaid OP for the claim of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of Takkeda Srinivasa Rao who died in a motor vehicle accident on 5-5-1993. The facts in this petition can be briefly as follows:
4. The deceased Takkeda Srinivasa Rao was the only son of respondents 1 and 2-Claimants and he was aged about 18 years and studied up to 10th class and the deceased was maintaining the family by doing cooly work and also with the earnings from selling the vegetables at Kesara and surrounding village. He was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month and the deceased was hail and healthy prior to the accident. It is farther stated that on 5-5-1993 the deceased purchased vegetables from Kanchikacherla market and boarded the lorry bearing No. AAT 4674 to go to his village Keesara. When the said lorry reached near Mitra Oxygen Company, dashed against the opposite vehicle No. AIW 5499 in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed. Due to the accident the deceased Srinivasa Rao and other person died on the spot. The registration of a criminal case and certain other aspects had also been impleaded. Counters and additional counters were filed by the respondent parties denying the liability. On behalf of the claimants PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of the respondents in the OP RW1 to RW3 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 and Ex.X1 were marked. A finding had been recorded that the accident was due to mechanical defect of the vehicle. But, however, the learned Judge had awarded compensation under no fault liability allowing the OP., in part directing R1, R3, R4 and R5 in the OP to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants with proportionate costs and interest thereon at an interest of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and certain other directions were also given. The Counsel representing to the parties had not questioned any of the findings recorded by the learned Judge-cum-the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the only question, which had been argued, at length has been referred to supra.
5. Mrs. M. Bhasakra Laxmi, the Counsel representing the appellant had submitted that the Amending Act came into force on 14-11-1994, whereunder the compensation amount for no fault liability was raised to Rs. 50,000/- and the same would not be applicable to the accident which had taken place prior to the said date. The Counsel also pointed out that it is not in dispute that the present accident had taken place on 5-5-1993 prior to the Amending Act coming into force and the Amending Act has no retrospective operation and hence, the learned Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal totally erred in fixing the no fault liability at Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 25,000/-. The Counsel had placed reliance on Padma Srinivasan v. Premier Insurance Company Limited, , New India Assurance Co. Limited v. Salapuriappa, (D.B), A. Aruna v. K. Parameswara Rao, (DB) and also the judgment in AAO No. 1132 of 1998 dated 14-11-2002.
6. Sri Rangacharyulu representing the owners of the vehicles had submitted since it is just a question of law relating to the quantum to be granted under no fault liability, the benefit which is available to the Insurance Company automatically should be extended to the owners of the vehicle also, though the owners had not preferred any independent CMAs questioning the award in question.
7. On the other hand Sri Kavikumar Toleti placed strong reliance on Rathi Menon v. Union of India, 2001 AIR SCW 1074, and submitted that the compensation claimed, and provisions relating to the payment thereof, are to be liberally construed in favour of the claimants and not in favour of the Insurance Company, since the object of the Act is to give reasonable compensation to such claimants. The learned Counsel further submitted that though the decision in Rathi Menon v. Union of India (supra) was decided by the Apex Court while dealing with the Railways Act and Rules framed thereunder, the principle laid down in the said decision also is one which can be extended even to the present case.
8. Heard the Counsel on record.
9. The factual aspects and the findings recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are neither questioned nor any error had been pointed out by the respective Counsel in the findings recorded by the said Tribunal. Only a question of law relating to the quantum to be granted under no fault liability had been canvassed at length. It is not in dispute that the owners of the vehicles had not preferred any independent Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the said owners
intend to take shelter under the same appeal
preferred by the appellant-cum-National
Insurance Company. Under Section 141 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prior to the
Amending Act, Act 54 of 1994, the amount
of no fault liability payable in case of death
was Rs. 25,000/-. It is not in controversy that
the Amending Act 54 of 1994 came into
force with effect from 34-11-1994 and the
amount payable under no fault liability at
present in Rs. 50,000/- by virtue of the said
Amending Act. In Padma Srinivasan v.
Premier Insurance Co, Ltd. (supra), a three-
Judge Bench of the Apex Court while
dealing with Section 95(2)(a) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, Act 4 of 1939 as amended by
Amendment Act 56 of 1969, in relation to
the Insurance of the Motor Vehicles against
third party risk in case an accident occurring
during the currency of policy, it was held
that the liability of the insurer would be
extended to legal provision as it stood on
date of accident and the view expressed in
AIR 1976 Kant. 187 was reversed and the
view expressed in Sanjiva Shetty S. v.
Anantha, , was approved.
Much reliance was also placed on Rathi
Menon v. Union of India (supra) and the
said decision was rendered while dealing
with a case under the Railways Act and the
rules framed thereunder. This decision was
rendered by the Apex Court by a two-
Judge Bench of the Apex Court, and no
doubt it was observed that time of ordering
payment is more important to determine
as to what is the extent of compensation
which is prescribed by the rules to be
disbursed to the claimants, the word
‘compensation’ is not defined in the Act or
in the Rules it is the giving of an equivalent
or substitute of equivalent value. In New
India Assurance Company Limited v.
Salapuriappa (supra), while dealing with
the change brought about by a new Act
which came into force from 1-7-1989
whether Section 140 of the new Act has to
be given retrospective effect in the sense
that it has to be given effect in the case of
claims arising out of accident occurring prior to 1-7-1989, the Division Bench answered in a negative way stating that Section 140 of the Act has no retrospective effect. Reliance was also placed on A. Aruna v. K. Parameswara Rao (supra) in AAO No. 1132 of 1998, wherein this Court by judgment dated 14-11-2002 had taken the same view and had allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
10. It is no doubt true that the owners of the vehicles had not preferred independent appeals but the questions is relating to the prospective or retrospective operation of a particular amending provision and in view of the same, the benefit available to the Insurance Company is equally available to the owners of the vehicles also, though such owners had not preferred any independent Civil Miscellaneous Appeals questioning the award in question.
11. In the result the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent that the respondents 1 and 2-claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs. 25,000/- under no fault liability with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
12. Accordingly, the Appeal is partly
allowed and no order as to costs.