JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under section. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, has been preferred by claimant, Bali, for the enhancement of the award as well as for passing the award against the Insurance Company for the entire sum. 2. The accident had occurred on 24.8.1983. Hanuman (33 years) lost his life. The case set up in the claim application was that Hanuman was going on a cycle and Bus No. RNB-5011 hit the cycle as a result of which, Hanuman sustained injuries and died. The reply of the driver and the owner was that of denial, stating that the accident has occurred because of the mistake of the cyclist. The Insurance Company came with the plea that the insured had obtained policy by playing fraud. The learned Tribunal framed six issues. Claimant Bali entered into witness box and examined Laxman (AW 2) and Laxminarain (AW 3). No oral evidence was produced by the other side. The learned Tribunal held under issue No. 1 that the accident had occurred because of negligence of the driver of the Bus. Under issue No. 3, a sum of Rs. 81,200/- was held to be just compensation. After deducting Rs. 15,000/- paid as interim award, final award was passed for Rs, 66,200/-. 3. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of this appeal. His contention is that on the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, the names of the respondents No. 1 and 2 (driver and the owner of the vehicle) have been deleted from the array of the respondents and now `lie appeal against the respondent No. 3 is not maintainable. In support of his contention he has cited Banarsidas and Ann v. Mohd. Shafi and Ors., 1983 RLR 326 . 5. As against this, Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the case relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent is distinguishable, as in that case, the payment had already been made by the owner of the vehicle. He has further contended that the amount awarded is grossly inadequate and it should be increased. 5. As against this, Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the case relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent is distinguishable, as in that case, the payment had already been made by the owner of the vehicle. He has further contended that the amount awarded is grossly inadequate and it should be increased. He has also contended that the appeal has been preferred after coming into force of the new Act and therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company should be held to be unlimited. He has relied on the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Thankam, I (1995) ACC 503 . 6. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. There is much force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that appellant having abandoned the appeal against respondents No. 1 and 2, this appeal is not maintainable. In the case of Banarsidas and another (supra), it has been held by this court, and I respectfully agree with the view taken in that case, that after the appeal is dismissed against the owner, the appeal against the Insurance Company can no longer be maintained. It is true that in that case, the claimants had entered into compromise with the owner and also received the compensation but it is not on account of that reason only that the appeal was dismissed. It has been clearly held as follows : "As the appeal has been dismissed against the owner of the vehicle Mohd. Shafi on account of the withdrawal or abandonment of the claim against him by the appellants, the appeal can no longer be,.maintained against the Insurance Company alone." In the instant case also, appeal was preferred impleading the owner, driver and the Insurance Company, as respondents. On 4.1.1995, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the names of the respondents No. 1 and 2 be deleted at the risk of the appellant, and their names were deleted. The effect of the deletion of the name of the owner from the array of the respondents is that the appeal stands dismissed against the owner. Once, the appeal is held to have dismissed against the owner the appeal against the Insurance Company does not survive. There is thus, merit in the preliminary objection and this appeal liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 7. Once, the appeal is held to have dismissed against the owner the appeal against the Insurance Company does not survive. There is thus, merit in the preliminary objection and this appeal liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 7. Since the appeal is being dismissed as not maintainable, there is no need of going into the merits of the case. However, as the arguments have been addressed on the merits also, it is considered proper to deal with the other contentions. 8. The amount awarded cannot be held to be grossly inadequate, inasmuch as the multiplier of 20 has been adopted. 9. The liability of the Insurance Company also cannot be held to be unlimited in view of the finding of the learned Tribunal that as per the terms of the policy, the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 50,000/-. Section 95(2)(B)(i) of 1939 Act provides there shall be liability of Rs, 50,000/- only in respect of the persons other than passengers carried in a vehicle in which the passengers are carried for hire or reward. 10. The provisions of new law could not be made applicable in this case as the accident had occurred way back in 1983. It is the date of the accident on which the cause of action arises and law in force on that day is applicable to the claim application. The case of "New India Assurance Company" relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is not of much help to him. In that case, the Kerala High Court has held that interim award of Rs. 25,000/- should be awarded even though the accident had occurred before coming into force of the new Act keeping in view the fall in the currency value. Regarding liability of the Insurance Company, specific provision has been made in section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the pending cases to the effect that a policy of Insurance issued with any limited liability and in force immediately before the commencement of the new Act shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier. It means that the legislature has taken care of the cases filed before coming into force of the New Act and has provided that for the maximum period of four months, the cases shall be governed by the old Act subject to the period of expiry of Insurance. In the instant case, this appeal has been preferred in 1991 against the award passed on 15.10.1990. The Insurance had expired on 23.8.1984. It cannot be accepted that on coming into force of the Act of 1988, the liability of the Insurance Company has become unlimited. 11. No other point was pressed before me. 12. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.Appeal Dismissed. *******