AMITAVA Lala, J. - (1.) When the appeal was taken up for hearing none appeared in support of the respondents. After waiting for a considerable period we have called out the appeal and heard in merit. In earlier it was heard on two occasions but to fulfil the principles of audi alteram partem we wanted to hear the matter in presence of the respondents. Therefore, we fixed the appeal today with the direction to the appellant to inform the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in writing to appear before this Court and make his submission. However, inspite of information none appeared. It appears from the noting in the notice that Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Advocate, on tendering notice denied to take the same by saying that if he will get the file in his chamber, he will bring it and come before the Court to make his submission. In any event, no one appeared today on behalf of the respondents in spite of such information. Therefore, it can be safely presumed that the respondents are disinterested litigants.
(2.) SO far as the merit of the appeal is concerned, the sole point of consideration is about applicability of either old Act i. e. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 or new Act i. e. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at the relevant point of time. It is an admitted position that the accident took place in 1987 while the new Act i. e. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force w. e. f. 1st July, 1989. The claim petition was filed in the year 1996 in respect of the accident took place in 1987. According to Mr. A. B. Saran, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, as per the scope and ambit of Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the old Act, i. e. Act, 1939, the Insurance Company has limited liability and that limited liability is in effect of fifteen thousand rupees for each individual passenger. Therefore, when the Insurance Company was made liable for a limited amount and that too before coming into force the new Act, the liability of the Insurance Company will be restricted only to such amount as prescribed in the law. Now the question arose, if a claim petition is filed in the year 1996 when the new Act has already came into force, whether such claim petition will be governed by the new Act or by the old Act.
(3.) IN the aforesaid circumstances, we have gone through Section 217 of the new Act i. e. Act 1988 having repealing and savings clause. Sub-section 2 (b) of such Section is as follows : " (b) any certificate of fitness or registration or licence or permit issue or granted under the repealed enactments shall continue to have effect after such commencement under the same conditions and for the same period as if this Act had not been passed; (c) any document referring to any of the repealed enactments or provisions thereof, shall be construed as referring to this Act or to the corresponding provision of this Act. " In 1996 (2) JCLR 885 (SC) : AIR 1996 SC 1560, Ramesh Singh & Anr. v. Cinta Devi & Ors. , it was held as follows : "2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the relevant provisions of the Old Act as well as the New Act bearing on the question whether or not the appellant was required to make the deposit and we may state that the repealing clause, namely sub-section (4) of Section 217, preserves Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. We may at this stage reproduce Section 217 preserves Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. We may at this stage reproduce Section 217 (4) of the New Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. "section 217 (4 ).- The mention of particular matters in this section shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), with regard to the effect of repeals. " "section 6. Effect of repeal.- Where this Act, or any (Central Act) or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not - (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture liability or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed. " Suffice it to say that the New Act does not expressly or by necessary implication make the relevant provisions retrospective in character. ";