ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 Kulwant Kaur. An application for review of the judgment was also dismissed. The impugned judgment was in a Letters Patent Appeal which was filed against the judgment of learned single Judge affirming the judgment of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short the MACT). The MACT has dismissed the claim petition on the 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').
(3.) THE appeal filed by the claimant was allowed. Review application filed on the ground that Rs. 50,000/ - was not payable, was rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant -corporation submitted that the view of the High Court is clearly unsustainable. The High Court could not have directed the payment of Rs. 50,000/ - as "no fault liability". The High Court appears to have taken the view that the provision of Section 140 of the Act operate with retrospective effect.;