S.N. Bhargava, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order dated 9-2-1972 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur rejecting the claim petition of the appellants.
2. The accident took place on 26-9-1968 at a distance of 61/2 miles from Jaipur on Jaipur-Ajmer road when roadways bus RJL 696 3 and a private bus DLP 3487 collided against each other. The driver of private bus was killed and some passengers in the roadways bus also died, while some were injured. The private bus was insured with the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
3. Three claim petitions were filed, which were disposed of by the impugned order dated 9-2-1972. The appellants had preferred the claim, which was registered as claim No. 50 of 1968. Pritam Singh who was driving private bus DLP 3487 had died during the accident and the present appellants who were the legal representatives of the deceased Pritam Singh filed the claim for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- against the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Mr. Dheer Singh as well as the Life Insurance Corporation of India, who have denied the claim.
4. Learned Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of bus DLP 3487 by driver Pritam Singh and not because of rash and negligent driving of bus RJL 6963 and, therefore, the learned Tribunal held that neither owner of vehicle DLP 3487 nor his insurer is liable to pay compensation to his dependents under the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the view of the learned Tribunal is erroneous and not in accordance with law. He has submitted that in view of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claim should not have been defeated even if the accident had taken place due to negligence of Pritam Singh.
6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the insurance company, Mr. Srivastava has submitted that Section 92-A which is in Chapter VII-A was inserted by the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1982 and therefore, it will not govern the present case. This section has not been made retrospective by the legislature and unless the amendment had been made retrospective it should not govern the present case.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant on the other hand submitted that this is a beneficial legislation and benefits of the amendment should be given to the claimant. He placed reliance on Buckingham and Karnatak Co. v. Venktaiva : (1963)IILLJ638SC .
8. I have gone through the authority cited at the bar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has observed that a piece of social legislation intended to confer certain benefits on workmen should receive a liberal and beneficent construction from the courts. It has further been observed that the courts should not overlook the facts that the liberal construction must ultimately flow from the words used. If the words used in the section are capable of two constructions one of which is shown patently to assist the achievement of the object of the Act, courts would be justified in preferring that construction to the other which may not be able to further the object of the Act. If the words used in the section are reasonably capable of only one construction, the doctrine of liberal construction can be of no assistance.
9. In the present case there is no question of interpretation of any section. The only question is whether Section 92-A which came into existence and was inserted only in the year 1982 will have any effect on the present case where the incident took place in the year 1968 and the claim petition had been decided in 1972. The section has not been given retrospective effect and, therefore, in my opinion the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant has no force and deserves to be rejected.
10. Learned Counsel for the appellant also challenged the finding of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to negligence of Pritam Singh.
11. I have looked into the evidence produced by the parties before the Tribunal and have also gone through the judgment given on issue No. 1 and 1 am in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Tribunal. The evidence of Ramkishan (DW 2) who was driving bus DLP 3407 which was ahead of bus DLP 3487 cannot be relied upon as it was not possible for him to have seen and observe as to how the accident had taken place. Moreover, he is an interested witness and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW 4, Mohan Singh and PW 3, Jamindar, who have been relied upon by the learned Tribunal.
12. In this view of the matter, I do not find any force in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.