Short Note Applicants were awarded compensation Rs. 12,000/- by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhabua for a fatal motor accident which took place on 16.8.84, Respondent No. 1 was the driver of the offending vehicle, No. 2 its owner and No. 3 the Insurer, at the relevant time. In appeal (M.A. No. 229 of 85) Division Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 19.4.95 enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- Now by this review application, applicants seek further enhancement of the amount of compensation and it is submitted that as per law laid down by this Court from time to time, amount of compensation in a fatal accident case could not be less than the amount allowable under S. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which at the relevant time was Rs.50,000/-. This Court in Khashti Devi v. Amar Nath and others ( 1994 ACJ 873 ) considered the question of applicability of S, 140 of the Act of 1988 in the cases where accident took place prior to the enactment of this Act, held: "Suffice it to say that the calculation of compensation done by the Claims Tribunal was excessively low and unjust on the broad ground of minimum value of human life statutorily fixed by the Parliament. The liability to pay compensation on the principle of no fault in motor accident cases came to be statutorily provided by section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 and now under section 140 of the new Act of 1988, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as provided in section 92A and now the modified sum of Rs. 25,000/- as provided in section 140 of the new Act of 1988 represents, in our opinion, the minimum compensation for loss of human life in the estimate of Parliament. This legislative norm set forth by Parliament, in our opinion, ought to serve as a guideline for the Courts while assessing the amount of compensation in motor accident cases is arrived at on the principle of fault, which is likely to be more and never less. In view of this position, it is not necessary to decide the question, whether or not section 92A (section 140 of the present Act of 1988) is retrospective in its operation or not. In view of this position, it is not necessary to decide the question, whether or not section 92A (section 140 of the present Act of 1988) is retrospective in its operation or not. That provision mayor may not be retrospective, but the principle of minimum compensation can be applied to all pending claim cases before the Claims Tribunal and pending appeals before the High Courts." Similar view was taken by this Court in several subsequent decisions (See: Babu v. Kacharu and others (2000 ACJ, 559) and Khatoonbi and others v. Prithvipal Singh and another (2000 ACJ, 634). Section 140, which earlier provided for the minimum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in a fatal accident has now been amended with effect from 14.11.94 enhancing the said amount to Rs. 50,000/-. The appeal before the D.B. came up for hearing after the said amendment and was decided on 19.4.95. Obviously the aforesaid decisions were not brought to the notice of the D.B. at the time of hearing of the appeal. The order passed by" D.B. therefore, deserves to be reviewed and the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. We have also heard the appeal on merits and we are satisfied that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, the amount of compensation to which appellants are entitled should be raised to Rs. 50, 000/-. Accordingly, it is directed that the amount of compensation allowed by this Court vide its order dated 19.4.1995 in M.A. No. 229 of 85 is enhanced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. The balance amount shall be payable by the respondents jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 19.4.1995 until payment. There shall, however, be no order as to cost in this petition. This MCC is disposed of as aforesaid.