Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India addressed a special leave petition arising from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The dispute concerned whether an appeal filed after the repeal of the 1939 Act, but arising from a claim application instituted before the repeal, was governed by the old Act or the new Act's procedural requirement of deposit. The appellants, who were aggrieved by the award and required to pay compensation, filed an appeal before the High Court without depositing the amount required under the proviso to Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable for want of deposit. The accident occurred on 27 May 1988 and the claim application was filed on 23 December 1988 under the old Act. The new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force on 1 July 1989. The claim application was disposed of by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 29 June 1992 after the new Act had come into force, giving rise to a right to file an appeal. The appeal was preferred on 25 September 1992 under the old Act, but the High Court dismissed it for failing to deposit the amount as required by the proviso to Section 173 of the new Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the right of appeal under the old Act survived the repeal and whether the deposit condition under the new Act applied retrospectively. The Court noted that Section 217(4) of the 1988 Act preserves Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which saves rights and liabilities accrued under the repealed Act. The Court held that the new Act did not expressly or by necessary implication make its provisions retrospective. The right to appeal crystallized in the appellant on the institution of the claim application in the Tribunal of first instance, and that vested right could not be dislodged by the enactment of the new Act. The Court relied on three decisions: Hussain Kasam Dada v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, State of Bombay v. Supreme General Films Exchange Limited, and Vithal Bhai Narang Bhai Patel v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. & Nagpur. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for disposal of the appeal in accordance with law without insisting on deposit of the amount. No order was made as to costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles - Appeals - Vested Right of Appeal - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173 and 217(4) - The right to appeal accrues on institution of the claim application in the Tribunal of first instance under the old Act, and the repeal by the new Act does not dislodge this vested right unless the new Act expressly or by necessary implication makes its provisions retrospective; the proviso to Section 173 requiring deposit is procedural and cannot be applied retrospectively to an appeal arising from a claim instituted before the new Act came into force (Paras Not mentioned). B) Statutory Interpretation - Repeal and Saving - Effect of Repeal on Accrued Rights - General Clauses Act, 1897 Section 6; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 217(4) - Section 217(4) of the 1988 Act preserves Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which saves rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities accrued under the repealed Act, including remedies in respect thereof; the new Act does not expressly or by necessary implication make its provision retrospective, so the appellant's right to appeal without deposit under the old Act remains unaffected (Paras Not mentioned). C) Precedent - Binding Decisions - Application of Supreme Court Precedents - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The point is squarely covered by three Supreme Court decisions: Hussain Kasam Dada v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, (1953) SCR 987; State of Bombay v. Supreme General Films Exchange Limited, (1960) 3 SCR 640; and Vithal Bhai Narang Bhai Patel v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. & Nagpur, AIR 1967 SC 344, which established that a vested right of appeal is not affected by repeal absent retrospective operation; the High Court decisions taking a contrary view were overruled (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the right of appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 survives after repeal by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and whether the appellant is required to make a deposit under the proviso to Section 173 of the 1988 Act before the appeal can be entertained, when the claim application was instituted before the repeal.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment set aside; matter remitted to High Court for disposal of the appeal in accordance with law without insisting on deposit of the amount under proviso to Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Vested right of appeal crystallizes at institution of claim application
- repeal does not affect accrued rights unless retrospective
- Section 6 General Clauses Act preserves rights and remedies
- Section 217(4) New Act preserves Section 6 General Clauses Act
- proviso to Section 173 New Act is not retrospective
- appeal under old Act maintainable without deposit
- statutory deposit condition cannot impair vested right of appeal.
