JUDGMENT 1. - Both these appeals involve common question of law and fact, they arise out of the same accident, and the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned orders on the same day in both the matters though separate orders but on the same lines, therefore, both these appeals are being decided by this common order. 2. Necessary facts are that on 12.7.1987 the unfortunate accident took place wherein the two victims being Asik Ali and Salim Mohd. Died. Claim No. 25 forming part of Appeal No. 234 has been lodged on account of death of Asik Ali while Claim No. 24 forming part of Appeal No. 233 has been lodged on account of death of Salim Mohd. 3. In the claim petition the claimants claimed compensation under Section-110A, and along with that also prayed that under Section 92A the claimants are entitled to be awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- on No Fault Liability basis. That amount claimed on the basis of No Fault Liability was decided. However, the learned Tribunal by the impugned order has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in each of cases, on No Fault Liability basis by observing that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- as has been claimed is justified under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. In my view, since the accident relates to 12.7.1987 by which time the prevalent law was the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which came into effect from 1.7.1989 contains the provision under Section 140 while under the old Act being the Act of 1939 the corresponding provision was Section 92A. Under Section 92A the amount awardable on No Fault Liability basis in the event of death was sum of Rs. 15,000/-. This Section 92A was introduced in the old Motor Vehicles Act, w.e.f. 1.10.1982. In the present case the claim petition itself was also filed way back on 22.9.1987. Even by which time the old Act only prevailed. 5. It is established law repeatedly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the rights and liabilities o;f the respective parties gets crystallized as on the date of accident, and therefore, the amount awardable as compensation for any accident would be governed by the provisions of law as it existed at the time of accident. The new Act of 1988 has not been made retrospective whether expressly or by necessary implication. The new Act of 1988 has not been made retrospective whether expressly or by necessary implication. 6. In view of the above, in my view, the learned Tribunal was clearly in error in passing the award of Rs. 50,000/- in each of the cases rather it far exceeded its jurisdiction and the award could be made only for the sum of Rs. 15000/-. 7. Consequently both the appeals are allowed. The impugned award is modified, and is confined to Rs. 15,000/- only instead of Rs. 50,000/-. Record of the learned trial court be returned forthwith. The learned trial court is directed to expeditiously decide the claim.Appeal Allowed. *******