JUDGMENT Hon'ble B. S. Verma, J. : All these three appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) arise out of the same motor accident and similar point for determination in the appeals is involved in them, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided by this common order. It is pertinent to mention here that the accident in question occurred on 30-10-1989 i.e. after coming into force of the Ad, therefore, the petitions filed by the claimants were under the provisions of Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act. The appeals have wrongly been shown have been preferred under Section 110 D of the old Act of 1939. At the out set it may be mentioned that on 30-10-1989 a motor accident occurred involving Tanker No. USE 7168, owned by Smt. Geeta Devi and duly insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited between Lupral bhaghat Pancheshwar motor road, wherein few persons sustained fatal injuries and died and a few sustained grievous injuries. The claimants have preferred petitions for compensation, namely, Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 2 of 1990, Smt. Umedi Devi and another Vs. Geeta Devi and others, M.A.C. Petition No.3 of 1990, Neeta Devi and others Vs. Geeta Devi and others and M.A.C. Petition No.4 of 1990, Parvati Devi and others Vs. Geeta Devi and others, in respect of death of the deceased persons. The accident was alleged to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. The claim petitions were preferred against the owner, driver and the insurer of the ill-fated Tanker. The opposite parties contested the claim petitions and filed their written statements. The owner of the vehicle contended that the claimants were not the dependents of the deceased and the amount claimed was excessive. According to the owner the deceased were not authorised occupants in the Tanker and they undertook the journey without the consent and wishes' of the owner. It was contended that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company for unlimited liability. Driver Ganesh Singh also filed his written statement contending that he was not rash and negligent and the accident occurred due to vis-major and that he was not liable for compensation. It was contended that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company for unlimited liability. Driver Ganesh Singh also filed his written statement contending that he was not rash and negligent and the accident occurred due to vis-major and that he was not liable for compensation. Insurance company-appellant contested the claim petitions on the ground that the terms and conditions of the Policy were violated and the deceased were not authorised passengers in the Tanker at the time of accident. Validity of driving licence was also challenged. The learned Tribunal after framing necessary issues recorded the evidence led by the parties and ultimately, the claim petitions were decreed for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in each case under the provisions of Section 140 of the Act on the principle of no-fault liability holding that the claimants shall not be entitled to compensation under Section 168 of the Act. The Insurance Company-appellant was made liable to pay the compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum pendente lite and future. Aggrieved by the impugned award dated 16-10-1991, the present appeals have been preferred. The only ground raised in the present appeals on behalf of the appellant is that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding the compensation @ Rs. 25,000/- in each case, because the liability of the Insurer appellant was to pay compensation @ 15,000/- in the case of death under the provisions of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. I have heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company-Appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.3driver of the vehicle and perused the entire record including the lower court record. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation under Section 92-A of the Old Act of 1939 @ Rs. 15,0001- in respect of death of a person on the principle of no fault liability. This argument is entirely misconceived because it is admitted to the learned counsel that the accident occurred on 30-10-1989. The provisions of the new Act of 1988 came into force from 1-7-1989 meaning thereby on the date of accident the provisions of the new Act of 1988 were applicable. This argument is entirely misconceived because it is admitted to the learned counsel that the accident occurred on 30-10-1989. The provisions of the new Act of 1988 came into force from 1-7-1989 meaning thereby on the date of accident the provisions of the new Act of 1988 were applicable. It is significant to note that in the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, till the commencement of amending Act No. 54 of 1994, which came into force w.e.f. 14-11-1994, the compensation on the principle of no-fault liability under Section 140 in respect of death of a person was Rupees twenty-five thousand and not Rs. 15,000/-. In this view of the matter, there remains nothing to be answered in these appeals, as the ground of challenge taken by the appellant is misconceived. Accordingly, all the three appeals are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. The appeals are hereby dismissed. The judgment and awards, under appeals, are upheld. Costs easy. The amount in deposit with this Court, if any, be transmitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned for being paid to the claimants.