P. S. NARAYANA J. ( 1 ) THE matter came up for admission before this court and with consent of all the parties the main C. M. A. itself is being disposed of. ( 2 ) HEARD Mrs. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi counsel representing appellant-respondent no. 3, Mr. T. Ravikumar, counsel representing the respondents-claimants and Mr. A. Rangacharyulu and Mr. R. Venkataram, counsel representing the other respondents. ( 3 ) THE short question raised in the present C. M. A. is that under no fault liability where the accident occurred on 5. 5. 1993 prior to the Amending Act, the compensation amount to be granted is Rs. 50,000 or rs. 25,000? Except this question no other aspect had been canvassed before this court by the respective counsel representing the parties. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the appeal are the petitioners in M. V. O. P. No. 108 of 1994 on the file of the Chairmancum-III Additional District Judge, Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada and they filed the aforesaid O. P. for the claim of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 for the death of Takkeda Srinivasa Rao who died in a motor vehicle accident on 5. 5. 1993. The facts in this petition can be briefly stated as follows: the deceased Takkeda Srinivasa Rao was the only son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2-claimants and he was aged about 18 years and studied up to 10th class and the deceased was maintaining the family by doing coolie work and also with the earnings from selling vegetables at Keesara and surrounding villages. He was earning rs. 1,500 per month and the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident. It is further stated that on 5. 5. 1993 the deceased purchased vegetables from Kanchikacherla market and boarded the lorry bearing No. AAT 4674 to go to his village Keesara. When the said lorry reached near Mitra oxygen Company, it dashed against the opposite vehicle No. AIW 5499 in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed. Due to the accident the deceased Srinivasa Rao and another person died on the spot. The registration of a criminal case and certain other aspects had also been pleaded. Counters and additional counters were filed by the respondent parties denying the liability. On behalf of the claimants PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhs. Due to the accident the deceased Srinivasa Rao and another person died on the spot. The registration of a criminal case and certain other aspects had also been pleaded. Counters and additional counters were filed by the respondent parties denying the liability. On behalf of the claimants PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhs. A-l to A-4 were marked and on behalf of the respondents in the O. P. RW 1 to RW 3 were examined and Exhs. B-l and B-2 and Exh. X-l were marked. A finding had been recorded that the accident was due to mechanical defect of the vehicle. But, however, the learned judge had awarded compensation under no fault liability allowing the O. P. , in part directing R-l, R-3, R-4 and R-5 in the O. P. to pay jointly and severally an amount of rs. 50,000 to the claimants with proportionate costs and interest thereon at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and certain other directions were also given. The counsel representing the parties had not questioned any of the findings recorded by the learned judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the only question, which had been argued, at length has been referred to supra. ( 4 ) MRS. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned counsel representing the appellant, had submitted that the Amending Act came into force on 14. 11. 1994, whereunder the compensation amount for no fault liability was raised to Rs. 50,000 and the same would not be applicable to the accident which had taken place prior to the said date. The counsel also pointed out that it is not in dispute that the present accident had taken place on 5. 5. 1993 prior to the amending Act coming into force and the amending Act has no retrospective operation and hence, the learned Judge-cummotor accidents Claims Tribunal totally erred in fixing the no fault liability at rs. 50,000 instead of Rs. 25,000. Counsel had placed reliance on Padma Srinivasan v. Premier Insurance Co. Ltd. , 1982 ACJ 191 (SC); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Salapuriappa, 1997 ACJ 914 (AP); adagari Aruna v. Kammampati Parameswara Rao, 1999 ACJ 941 (AP) and also the judgment in A. A. O. No. 1132 of 1998 dated 14. 11. 2002. ( 5 ) MR. 25,000. Counsel had placed reliance on Padma Srinivasan v. Premier Insurance Co. Ltd. , 1982 ACJ 191 (SC); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Salapuriappa, 1997 ACJ 914 (AP); adagari Aruna v. Kammampati Parameswara Rao, 1999 ACJ 941 (AP) and also the judgment in A. A. O. No. 1132 of 1998 dated 14. 11. 2002. ( 5 ) MR. Rangacharyulu representing the owners of the vehicles had submitted since it is just a question of law relating to the quantum to be granted under no fault liability, the benefit which is available to the insurance company automatically should be extended to the owners of the vehicles also, though the owners had not preferred any independent CMAs questioning the award in question. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, Mr. T. Ravikumar placed strong reliance on Rathi Menon v. Union of India, 2001 ACJ 721 (SC) and submitted that the compensation claimed and provisions relating to the payment thereof, are to be liberally construed in favour of the claimants and not in favour of the insurance company, since the object of the Act is to give reasonable compensation to such claimants. Learned counsel further submitted that though the decision in Rathi Menon v. Union of India (supra), was decided by the Supreme Court while dealing with the Railways Act and Rules framed thereunder, the principle laid down in the said decision also is one which can be extended even to the present case. ( 7 ) HEARD the counsel on record. ( 8 ) THE factual aspects and the findings recorded by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal are neither questioned nor any error had been pointed out by the respective counsel in the findings recorded by the said Tribunal. Only a question of law relating to the quantum to be granted under no fault liability had been canvassed at length. It is not in dispute that the owners of the vehicles had not preferred any independent civil miscellaneous appeals and the said owners intend to take shelter under the same appeal preferred by the appellant national Insurance Co. Ltd. Under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prior to the Amending Act, Act 54 of 1994, the amount of no fault liability payable in the case of death was Rs. 25,000. It is not in controversy that the Amending Act 54 of 1994 came into force with effect from 14. Ltd. Under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prior to the Amending Act, Act 54 of 1994, the amount of no fault liability payable in the case of death was Rs. 25,000. It is not in controversy that the Amending Act 54 of 1994 came into force with effect from 14. 11. 94 and the amount payable under no fault liability at present is Rs. 50,000 by virtue of the said Amending Act. In Padma srinivasan v. Premier Insurance Co, Ltd. , 1982 ACJ 191 (SC), a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court while dealing with section 95 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, act 4 of 1939 as amended by Amendment act 56 of 1969, in relation to the insurance of the motor vehicles against third party risk in case an accident occurring during the currency of policy, it was held that the liability of the insurer would be extended to legal provision as it stood on date of accident and the view expressed in Premier insurance Co. Ltd. v. Padma Srinivasan, 1976 ACJ 190 (Karnataka), was reversed and the view expressed in Sanjiva Shetty v. Anantha, 1978 ACJ 508 (Karnataka), was approved. Much reliance was also placed on Rathi Menon v. Union of India, 2001 ACJ 721 (SC) and the said decision was rendered while dealing with a case under Railways Act and the Rules framed thereunder. This decision was rendered by the Apex Court by a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, and no doubt it was observed that time of ordering payment is more important to determine as to what is the extent of compensation which is prescribed by the Rules to be disbursed to the claimants. The word compensation is not defined in the Act or in the Rules. It is the giving of an equivalent or substitute of equivalent value. In the case of New India assurance Co. Ltd. v. Salapuriappa, 1997 acj 914 (AP), while dealing with change brought about by a new Act which came into force from 1. 7. 1989, whether section 140 of the new Act has to be given retrospective effect in the sense that it has to be given effect in the case of claims arising out of accident occurring prior to 1. 7. 1989 the Division Bench answered in a negative way stating that section 140 of the Act has no retrospective effect. 7. 1989, whether section 140 of the new Act has to be given retrospective effect in the sense that it has to be given effect in the case of claims arising out of accident occurring prior to 1. 7. 1989 the Division Bench answered in a negative way stating that section 140 of the Act has no retrospective effect. Reliance was also placed on Adagari Aruna v. Kammampati parameswara Rao, 1999 ACJ 941 (AP ). In A. A. O. No. 1132 of 1998, wherein this court by judgment dated 14. 11. 2002 had taken the same view and had allowed the appeal filed by the insurance company. ( 9 ) IT is no doubt true that the owners of the vehicles had not preferred independent appeals but the question is relating to the prospective or retrospective operation of a particular amending provision and in view of the same, the benefit available to the insurance company is equally available to the owners of the vehicles also, though such owners had not preferred any independent civil miscellaneous appeals questioning the award in question. ( 10 ) IN the result the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs. 25,000 under no fault liability with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is partly allowed and no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.