Judgment :- For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the claim petition. 2. On 20.03.1989, at about 11.30 pm, while the claimants were proceeding in a Scooter bearing Registration No.TCH.3663 along Poonamallee Check Post, a car bearing Registration No.TMT.2458 belonging to the second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Scooter and caused the accident, in which both the claimants sustained serious injuries. The claimants, who are brother and sister claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-, respectively, as compensation. 3. In the counter filed by the second respondent, it is alleged that on 20.03.1989, at about 11.00 pm, the car which was parked in front of the first respondents house was stolen by one Yania Khan and he removed it without the knowledge of the first respondent and drove the vehicle and has caused the accident. 4. After considering the oral evidence on record, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that under no fault liability, the appellant herein is responsible to compensate the claimants to the tune of Rs.25,000/-each. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has approached this court. 5. The scope of this matter is very limited. Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provides for payment of Rs.7500/-for the injuries on account of no fault liability. The accident took place on 20.03.1989 before advent of the amended Act in 1988, which came into effect from 01.07.1989. As per the provisions of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Insurance Company is liable to pay a sum of Rs.7500/-to each of the claimants in view of no fault liability. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would draw the attention of this court to the decision of this court reported in 2002 ACJ 449 (Saffia Bee and others vs. B.Sathar and others), wherein after considering a catena of decisions, this court has reached the conclusion that neither Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 nor Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would have any retrospective effect. The operative portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder : "30. The operative portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder : "30. The Supreme Court in the decision Mithilesh Kumari vs. Prem Behari Khare, AIR 1989 SC 1247 , would hold that a retrospective operation is not to be given to a statute so as to impair existing right or obligation, otherwise than as regards matter of procedure unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. Before applying a statute retrospectively, the court has to be satisfied that the statute is in fact retrospective. The presumption against retrospective operation is strong in cases in which the statute, if operated retrospectively, would prejudicially affect vested rights or impair contracts, or impose new duty or attach new disability in respect of past transactions or considerations already passed. Words not requiring a retrospective operation, so as to affect an existing statute prejudicially, ought not to be so construed. 7. In view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court as followed in the aforesaid decision, the award passed by the Tribunal has to be modified and it is hereby concluded that both the claimants are each entitled to only a sum of Rs.7,500/-on account of no fault liability and the appellant is directed to pay the same to the claimants along with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. 8. It is stated that 50% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal has been deposited. If the deposit amount does not satisfy the award passed by this court, the appellant has to deposit the balance amount along with interest as directed by this court and the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed. No costs.