JUDGMENT P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. This appeal is from an award passed by the M. A. C. Tribunal, Quilon in O. P. (M. V) No. 2004 of 1985. The appellant, third respondent in the petition, is the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident which took place on 16.9.1984. The first respondent herein is the injured who sustained injuries in the accident while travelling in an ambassador can KLH 8874. While the car was trying to overtake a fast passenger bus going in front of it was hit by a fiat car KLT 5653 which was coming from the opposite direction. It is alleged that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent herein who was driving the ambassador car in which the claimant was travelling. Third respondent herein is the owner of the said car. Fourth respondent was the driver of the fiat car and fifth respondent is its owner. Sixth respondent is the insurer of the fiat car. In the accident first respondent suffered injuries and he had undergone tnreatment under the District Medical Officer. Quilon and also under an ayurvedic physician. In view of the disability caused to the first respondent he filed an application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 1 lakh. That application was resisted by the respondents by filing separate counter statements. The driver of the ambassador car contended that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the fiat car which came from the opposite direction. The fourth respondent driver of the fiat car on the other hand denied that he was coming in a rash and negligent manner. The appellant denied its liability to pay compensation and contended that the driver of the fiat car was rash and negligent. Sixth respondent insurer of the fiat car contended that fourth respondent was not rash and negligent and at any rate its liability is limited to Rs. 50,000/-. 2. The Tribunal after enquiry found that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. Accordingly, liability of negligence was apportioned between the two drivers of the offending vehicles. The ambassador car was negligent to the extent of seventy five per cent and fiat car was negligent to the extent of twentyfive per cent. Ultimately the claimant was awarded a compensation of Rs. Accordingly, liability of negligence was apportioned between the two drivers of the offending vehicles. The ambassador car was negligent to the extent of seventy five per cent and fiat car was negligent to the extent of twentyfive per cent. Ultimately the claimant was awarded a compensation of Rs. 33,500/- with interest at 6%. The Tribunal further held that 75% of the award amount would be paid by respondents 1 to 3 in the petition with execution first against the third respondent and 25% of the award amount would be paid by respondents 4 to 6 with execution first against sixth respondent. Being aggrieved by the above award, the present appeal has been filed by the third respondent-insurer. 3. A cross appeal has been filed on behalf of the first respondent claimant. In the cross appeal first respondent pleaded for enhancement of the amount awarded. In this connection it has to be observed that the appeal has been filed by the insurer of the vehicle and this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kunhiraman Nambiar ( 1994 (1) KLT 956 ) held that cross appeal by the claimant in an appeal filed by the insurer is not maintainable. Therefore the cross appeal is dismissed. 4. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that the ambassador car KLH 8874 was a private car and it was in respect of which Ext. R1 certificate of insurance was issued by the appellant. Ext. R1 is an act policy and the appellant is not liable to compensate the claimant who was only a gratuitous passenger in a private car. We do not see any such contention was pressed before the Tribunal and there was neither any issue nor was there any discussion on this question. Further the third respondent owner of the ambassador car does not appear to have taken any such contention before the Tribunal. That being so. we are not inclined to consider this question urged by the appellant. The result is that the apportionment of liability between the offending vehicles by the Tribunal is confirmed. 5. It was then argued on behalf of the appellant that if at all it is liable as found by the Tribunal it can only be so to the extent of Rs. 15,000/-. The result is that the apportionment of liability between the offending vehicles by the Tribunal is confirmed. 5. It was then argued on behalf of the appellant that if at all it is liable as found by the Tribunal it can only be so to the extent of Rs. 15,000/-. On the other hand the first respondent claimant contended that he is also entitled to get all the benefits available under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Counsel further argued that this is a pending proceeding in respect of which the benefit available under the amended Act would apply. 6. In view of the above submissions it is essential to determine the extent of liability of the appellant. It has come out in evidence that Ext. R1 is an Act policy where the liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured in the event of accident is limited to the amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Under S.95(2)(b)(ii) the liability is limited to Rs. 15,000/- for each individual passenger. The injured may be a person travelling in a private car but that does not mean he ceased to be a 'passenger' contemplated under the provision referred to above. 7. The learned Counsel for the first respondent pointed out that in view of the provisions contained in S.217, the claims pending at the time of commencement of the Act 1988 shall be disposed of under the provision of that Act. But sub-s.(4) of the said Section specifically provides mat the provisions contained in S.217 shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of S.6 of the General Clauses Act. In this connection it is apt to observe the observation of the Supreme Court in Padma Srinivasan v. Premier Insurance Co. Ltd. (1982 ACJ 191) which runs as follows: "Since the liabilityy of the insurer to pay a claim under a motor accident policy arises on the occurrence of the accident and not until then, one must necessarily have regard to the state of law obtaining at the time of the accident for determining the extent of the insurer's liability under a statutory policy. In this behalf the governing factor for determining the application of the appropriate law is not the date on which the policy of insurance came into force but the date on which the cause of action accrued for enforcing liability arising under the terms of the policy." Following the said decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Laxminarain alias Kaka and another v. Balbir Kaur and others ( 1992 ACJ 705 ) held that the accident is the cause of giving rise to the rights and liabilities of the parties involved in it. The state of law existing on the date of the accident should govern the rights and liabilities of the parties. 8. In view of the discussion herein before we hold that the liability of the appellant to pay the amount awarded by the Tribunal is limited to Rs. 15,000/-. In all other respects the order of the Tribunal is confirmed. No Order as to costs.