MADAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the interim order dated 6. 07. 1991, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karauli, District Sawai Madhopur in MAC No. 39/88, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded Rs. 15,000/-, on the principle of 'no Fault Liability' under Section 140 of the Act, to the appellant, who is the sole legal heir of the deceased, instead of awarding Rs. 25,000/- as stipulated under the Act.
(2.) IN this case, there is no dispute regarding the incident which took place on 27. 12. 1987 resulting in death of the father of the appellant (deceased) who was travelling as a passenger in Bus No. RRL-2747, being driven by respondent No. 4, rashly and negligently. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the father of the deceased-appellant, who was travelling in the said bus had sustained serious injuries as a consequence of which he died while travelling in the bus. The provisions of Section 140 of the Act, which was brought on the statute book after due amendment with effect from 1st of July, 1989 provides as under: - "140 (2) - The amount of compensation which shall be payable under subsection (1) in respect of death of any person shall be a fixed sum of twenty-five thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of twelve thousand rupees. " Keeping in view the aforesaid provisions of Section 140 of the Act, which is a beneficial legislation, it was incumbent upon the learned Tribunal to have awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as interim relief to the claimant of the deceased i. e. the appellant herein. Instead of awarding a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, which is stipulated under the Act as a minimum statutory liability under the Act, the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 15,000/- as interim relief to the appellant and thus misconstrued the beneficial object of the aforesaid provision of Section 140 of the Act. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the matter of Kanhaiya Lal & Another vs. Kailash Devi & Others (1), decided on 23. 01. 1991, wherein Hon'ble K. C. Agrawal, CJ (as he then was ) of this Court held that payment of no fault compensation is a procedural matter and law dealing with procedure of the Court should be construed retrospectively unless such consideration is textually inadmissible. In this case the impugned order was pronounced on 6. 07. 1991 whereas the amendment in the Act came into force with effect from 1. 07. 1989, hence obviously the liability on the principle of no fault should have been fixed by the Tribunal as Rs. 25,000/ instead of Rs. 15,000/ -. Consequently, I am of the view that the Tribunal has acted beyond its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order dated 6. 07. 1991, which is hereby quashed and set aside. The learned Tribunal is directed to award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the claimant of the deceased i. e. the appellant instead of Rs. 15,000/-, as fixed earlier by the Tribunal. It is further directed that in such like matters filing of Succession Certificate is not necessary because admittedly, there was no dispute on record regarding the claim of the deceased and admittedly the appellant was the sole surviving claimant of the deceased late Shri Brij Mohan.
(3.) THE appeal is, therefore allowed as indicated above, and stands disposed of interms of this order. No order as to costs. .;