1. - These appeals involve common question of law and facts arising out of same accident and, therefore, for convenience, they are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Pulise Mallah, Firoz Devan, Abdul Hakim, Yusuf and Barkat met with an accident on 10.5.1993 arising out of use of a motor vehicle Truck No. RJ-12-G 152. These persons sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries and as such death of aforesaid persons resulted due to motor vehicle accident arising out of use of motor vehicle. The legal representatives of the deceased persons filed separate claim petitions before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') claiming compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the principle of "no fault liability" as well as under Section 166 of the Act on the principle of "fault liability". By judgments and awards impugned dated 13.11.2000, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in each case interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act on the principle of "no fault liability" and held the insurance company liable.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the awards impugned.

4. learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the said accident occurred on 10.5.1993 and the compensation payable on the principle of "no fault liability" in case of death as envisaged under Section 140 of the Act before its amendment, was Rs. 25,000/- in each case. He further submits that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- by Amendment Act No. 54 of 1994 which came into force from 14.11.1994. He further submits that Amendment Act No. 54 of 1994 is not retrospective in operation and, therefore, the accident which took place prior to coming into force of the Amendment Act, compensation payable on the principle of "no fault liability" was Rs. 25,000/- only. Undisputebly, the said accident occurred on 15.5.1993. By Sub-section (2) of Section 140 of the Act the amount of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- was increased to Rs. 50,000/- in case of death on the principle of "no fault liability" w.e.f. 14.11.1994 and the operation of the said amendment was not given retrospective effect and as such, for the accident resulting in death prior to coming into force of the Amendment Act, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation could not have been awarded. Thus, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant in this regard deserves to be accepted and the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be reduced to Rs. 25,000/-. Compensation payable under Section 140 of the Act was Rs. 25,000/- in each case.

5. In National Insurance Company v. Heera and Ors., RLW 1999 (1) (Raj.) 368 , this Court held as under:

"The amendment to Sub-section (2) of Section 140 of the Act is not a procedural law but it is substantive law which affects rights, obligations and liabilities already accrued to the owners of the vehicles and the claimants qua insurer on the date of accident."

6. It was further held that the said amendment cannot be given retrospective effect. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padma Srinivasan v. Premier Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1982 SC 836 .

7. It is contended by the learned Counsel of the appellant that the insured has committed breach of policy and, therefore, the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable.

8. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the principle of "no fault liability" and the defences, if any, available to the appellant insurance company has to be pleaded and proved by evidence which yet to be recorded as the claims filed on the basis of "fault liability" under Section 166 of the Act are yet to be adjudicated. To award compensation on the principle of "no fault liability", the Tribunal is first required to satisfy that the death has occurred due to accident arising out