JUDGMENT B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. : These ten appeals are directed against orders dated 30.04.1996 passed in Misc. Case Nos.47/88 (C) 94/92, 37/86(C) 94/92, 35/85 (C) 94/92, 62/84 (C) 94/92 and 38/87 (C) 94/92 by the 3rd MACT-cum-Additional District Judge, Balasore (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. Since all these appeals involve common question of law, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these ap¬peals are that in the above five misc.cases the legal heirs of the deceased persons, who died in a vehicular accident on 14.06.1992 because of head on collission between a trekker and a truck, filed claim petitions before the Tribunal for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short “the Act 1988”). Thereafter, the legal heirs of the deceased filed applications under Section 140 of the Act 1988 for interim relief of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) under “no fault liability”. The Tribunal in each of these five misc. cases awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) to the legal heirs of the deceased persons under Section 140 of the Act 1988 and directed the insurers of both the vehicles to pay the said compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants proportionately within one month from the date of the interim award with a condition that in the event of failure to pay the award amount within the stipulated time of one month, the award amount would carry inter¬est @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petitions under Section 140 of the Act 1988 till realization. Learned Tribunal relying on a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ram Kishore Sani & Ors., 1991 ACJ II 878, held that the complainants-petitioners are entitled to get Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.25,000/- as the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 has retrospective application. Hence, the present appeals. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-Insurance Companies argued that under the un-amended provisions of Section 140 of the Act, 1988, the quantum of compensation was fixed at Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) in case of death. After the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 came into force with effect from 14.11.1994, the said amount of compensation has been enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. After the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 came into force with effect from 14.11.1994, the said amount of compensation has been enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal is not justified to hold that the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 has retrospective application and the claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The provisions of the M.V. Act are substantive in nature. The liability of the insurer cannot be stretched beyond the law prevalent on the date of accident. It is further argued that since the compensation awarded under Section 140 of the Act 1988 is an interim one, the learned Tribunal is not justified in awarding interest on the same. The learned counsel cited some decisions in support of his contention. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants-respondents strenuously urged that the Motor Vehicles Act being a benevolent legislation, the interim compensation of Rs.50,000/- as provided in the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 has retrospective application. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased persons who died due to the accident on 14.06.1992, i.e., prior to the date the Amendment Act came into force, are entitled to get compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Act 1988. In support of his contention he relied on the decision of the apex Court in Rathi Menon v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 1333 . It is contended that Section 171 of the Act 1988 provides for award of interest on the amount of compensation directed to be paid to the claimants. The said provision does not make any distinction among the compensations paid under Section 140 of the Act 1988, Section 163-A and compensation awarded under Section 168 of the Act 1988. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal by awarding interest on the amount of compensation as prescribed under Section 171 of the Act 1988. 5. On the rival contentions, the following two questions fall for consideration by this Court : (i) Whether the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 that came into force with effect from 14.11.1994 has retrospective application and is applicable to the instant cases, where the alleged accident took place on 14.06.1992, i.e., much prior to the date the Amendment Act came into force, entitling the claimants to compensation of Rs.50,000/- as envisaged under Section 140 of the Act, 1988. (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to interest on the amount of compensation awarded under Section 140 of the Act, 1988 from the date of filing of the application under the said Act till the date of payment ? 6. For better appreciation, it is necessary to reproduce here the relevant provisions of Section 140 of the Act, 1988 prior to the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 came into force on 14.11.1994. “140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault - (1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or Motor vehicles, the owner of the vehi¬cle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this Section. (2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under Sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of twenty-five thousand rupees and the amount of com¬pensation payable under that Sub-section in respect of the perma¬nent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of twelve thousand rupees. xx xx xx Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensa¬tion payable under this Section or under Section 163-A”. The amounts of ‘twenty-five thousand rupees’ and ‘twelve thousand rupees’ appearing in Sub-section (2) above have been raised to ‘fifty thousand rupees’ and ‘twenty-five thousand rupees’ respectively in the Amendment Act 54 of 1994. 7. A plain reading of Section 140 of the Act, 1988 reveals that the amount of compensation on the principle of ‘no fault liability in case of death was Rs.25,000/- prior to 14.11.1994 when the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 came into force and subsequent¬ly it has been enhanced to Rs.50,000/- by introduction of the Amendment Act. The claimants shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, ne¬glect or default on the part of the owner or owners of the vehi¬cle or vehicles involved in the accident or any other person. 8. The claimants shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, ne¬glect or default on the part of the owner or owners of the vehi¬cle or vehicles involved in the accident or any other person. 8. It is not in dispute that the accident took place on 14.06.1992 i.e. prior to the Amendment Act came into force. The question remains whether the appellants are entitled to compensa¬tion to the tune of Rs.25,000/- under Section 140 of the Act, 1988 as it stood on the date of the alleged accident or they are entitled to get Rs.50,000/- under the provisions of Section 140 of the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 which were prevailing on the date of the impugned award was passed. 9. The Apex Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corpora¬tion, Ahmedabad v. Ramnanbhai Prabhatbhai and another., 1987 (II) ACJ 561 held that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, are not merely procedural provisions. They substantially affect the rights of the parties. Law is well settled that unless legislature by expression or necessary implication indicates retrospective application of any Act, the application shall only be prospective. Right to pay compensation has been created by the statute itself [see United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi, 1998 (2) TAC 330 (Ker)]. The apex Court in R.L. Gupta v. Jupitor General Insurance Co., (1990) 1 SCC 356 , held that the quantum of liability is provided by the statute prospectively. The apex Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. Kulwant Kaur and Others, (2009) 4 SCC 32 , held that the amount of compensation payable as “no fault liability” under Section 140 of the Act 1988 was as per the law prevailing on the date of accident. This Court in Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nandara Bawa and others., reported in 1997(2) ACJ 200 (Orissa), held that the provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act are not retrospective. The golden rules of all the statutes are prospective unless statutes prescribe otherwise. The amending Act 54 of 1994 which came into force w.e.f. 14.11.1994 does not prescribe for its retrospective application. Thus the amendment, which came into force w.e.f. 14.11.1994 providing for compensation of Rs.50,000/-, has no retrospective operation. The golden rules of all the statutes are prospective unless statutes prescribe otherwise. The amending Act 54 of 1994 which came into force w.e.f. 14.11.1994 does not prescribe for its retrospective application. Thus the amendment, which came into force w.e.f. 14.11.1994 providing for compensation of Rs.50,000/-, has no retrospective operation. It is also well settled that the liability of the insurer can be stretched within the law that was prevailing on the date of accident. (see Padma Srinivasan v. Premier Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1982 SC 836 ) 10. The matter can also be considered from another angle. For example, two persons died in an accident which took place prior to the date the Amendment Act 1994 came into force. Accordingly, two claim cases were filed. In one case, if compen¬sation of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under Section 140 to be paid prior to the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 came into force and, in other case, Rs.50,000/- is awarded to be paid after the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 came into force, then it will amount to discrimi¬nation. The apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Beharilal & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 137 , held that the object of fixing liability at a fixed amount for some period is to maintain uniformity, the compensation cannot be different to the persons who suffered accident only because of the fact that some cases were not dis¬posed of earlier. 11. The decision cited by learned counsel of the claimant-respondent in Rathi Menon v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 1333 has no application to the case of the claimant. The said judgment was rendered in connection with one claim case under the Indian Rail¬ways Act. The Act does not provide for any fixed amount of com¬pensation; the same is left with the Central Government to fix the amount of compensation from time to time. Section 140 of the M.V. Act. Act itself provides for the amount of compensation. Moreover, this decision of the apex Court had no occasion to refer to the Padma Srinivasan (supra). 12. Section 140 of the M.V. Act. Act itself provides for the amount of compensation. Moreover, this decision of the apex Court had no occasion to refer to the Padma Srinivasan (supra). 12. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered view that since the accident in question took place on 14.06.1992 i.e. prior to the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 came into force, the legal heirs of the deceased persons are entitled to get compensation of Rs.25,000/- under Section 140 of the Act 1988, i.e., as per the law prevailing on the date of accident. The Tribunal is, therefore, not justified directing payment of Rs.50,000/- merely because the said payment was directed to be made after the Amendment Act 54 of 1994 came into force. 13. The next question relates to payment of interest on the amount of compensation awarded under Section 140 of the Act, 1988. This Court in New India Assurance Company represented through Divisional Manager, Khurda Division v. Radha Bewa & Ors., 1997 (2) T.A.C. 96 Orissa, held that in respect of no fault liability, the question of awarding interest does not arise as interest may be awarded at the time of final award. In view of the above decision of this Court, no interest is payable on the amount of compensation awarded under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, at this juncture. The appeals are allowed accordingly. Appeals allowed.