Manthena Satyanarayana Raju Vs. Lakkamraju Lakshmikanthamma and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
motor vehicles - compensation - section 140 of motor vehicles act, 1988 and section 92 of old motor vehicles act - grant of compensation relying on new act - such act inapplicable for awarding compensation for accidents occurred prior to its commencement for want of retrospective effect - held, grant of compensation relying on inapplicable act illegal. - a.p. record of rights in land and pattadar pass books act, 1971. section 5(3) & a.p. record of rights in land and pattadar passbooks rules, 1989, rules 5 & 19: : [g.s. singhvi, c.j., & g.v. seethapathy, c.v. nagarjuna reddy, jj] amendment of record of rights procedure held, proviso to section 5(1) and (3) represent statutory embodiment of the most important facet of rules of natural justice i.e., audi alterem partem. these provisions contemplate issue of notice to persons likely to be affected by action/decision of mandal revenue officer to carry out or not to carry out amendment in record of rights. similarly, a notice is required to be issued to any other person whom recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by amendment. a copy of amendment and notice is also required to be published in prescribed manner. the publication of notice in prescribed manner is in addition to notice, which is required to be given in writing to all persons whose names are entered in record of rights and who are interested in or affected by amendment and also to any other person whom recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by amendment. the publication of a copy of amendment and notice is only supplemental and not the alternative mode of giving notice to persons whose names are entered in the record of rights. if legislature thought that publication of a general notice in form viii will be sufficient compliance of rules of natural justice, then there was no occasion to incorporate a specific requirement of issuing written notice to persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment. the requirement of issuing written notice to such persons clearly negates the argument that publication of notice in form vii is sufficient. thus the language of form viii in which notice is required to be published cannot control the interpretation of substantive provision contained in section 5((3), which casts a duty on recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or aggrieved by the proposed amendment. - 25,000/- as no fault liability compensation it has no retrospective effect which was clearly expressed by the division bench of this high court in the decision referred to above. the order of the tribunal in other respects holds good.g. yethirajulu, j. 1. this cma was preferred by the driver of the lorry bearing no. ahp 3176 which belongs to the sixth respondent, against the order of the motor vehicles claims tribunal, krishna at vijayawada in m.v.o.p no. 74 of 1990 questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the said tribunal on account of the death of one sesham raju in an accident that was caused by the said lorry on 11-6-1989.2. respondents 1 to 5 being the legal heirs of the said sesham raju (deceased) made a claim for rs. 50,000/- before the tribunal under section 110-a of the motor vehicles act, 1939 (for short 'the act') against the appellant and the sixth respondent. the tribunal held that though there was negligence on the part of the appellant there was no rashness in driving the lorry. ultimately the tribunal did not award the compensation under section 110-a of the act but awarded compensation under section 92-a of the act by granting a sum of rs. 25,000/- as no fault liability compensation by relying on a decision of a single judge of this high court in new india assurance company limited v. j.l reddy, 1995 (1) ald 75. 3. the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the tribunal awarded compensation through its award, dated 31-10-1996, the decision of a division bench of this high court in new india assurance company limited v. salapuriappa, : 1996(2)alt330 was not brought to the notice of the tribunal and, therefore, the tribunal erroneously awarded a sum of rs. 25,000/- as no fault liability compensation, and requested this court to reduce the amount to rs. 15,000/- which is the amount permissible under section 92-a of the act. 4. the accident occurred on 11-6-1989. the motor vehicles act, 1988 (the new act) came into force on 1-7-1989. the accident occurred prior to the new act coming, into force. though section 140 of the new act provides for award of rs. 25,000/- as no fault liability compensation it has no retrospective effect which was clearly expressed by the division bench of this high court in the decision referred to above. the criminal case filed against the appellant ended in acquittal. the tribunal did not also give a definite rinding that the appellant was responsible for causing the accident. since the award under no fault liability was not on the basis of a finding regarding the negligence, the tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 25,000/- towards no fault liability compensation under section 92-a of the act. i have already observed that the new act has no retrospective effect. as the accident occurred prior to the new act coming into force, the provisions of section 92-a of the act are attracted. section 92-a of the act provides for award of rs. 15,000/- only towards no fault liability compensation. the learned counsel for the appellant is right in asserting that the tribunal was wrong in awarding rs. 25,000/-. 5. in the light of the above discussion, i am inclined to accept the request of the learned counsel for the appellant. the cma is accordingly allowed. the no fault liability compensation of rs. 25,000/-awarded by the tribunal is reduced to rs. 15,000/- only. the order of the tribunal in other respects holds good. there shall be no order as to costs.