JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company and the Cross-Objection filed by the claimant are taken up together. I first propose to deal with the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 2. Present appeal at the instance of the appellant arises out of M.A.C. Petition No.639 of 1988, thereby the claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 75000/- due to injury caused to the claimant arising out of an accident when a Matador Van in which the claimant was travelling along with her husband. The said van due to negligent driving on the part of the driver of Matador had fallen inside a pit resulting in injury of the claimant. Thus, in the accident no other vehicle was involved. 3. The learned Tribunal below on consideration of the materials on record came to the conclusion that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Matador Van, which was insured by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the claimant suffered injury and on the basis of evidence on record, the learned Tribunal was of the view that as the claimant was earning Rs. 700/- a month by way of selling milk and the disability was found to be 22%, it was a fit case of application of multiplier of 15 on the basis of the said income and the extent of disability. The learned Tribunal below treated the age of the claimant to be 45 years. 4. In addition to that amount, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for pain, shock and suffering. From the documents produced by the claimant, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Rs. 16,810/- should be awarded for medical charges and as due to injury she remained an indoor patient for two months, further sum of Rs. 1400/- was awarded towards actual loss of income by taking Rs. 700/- a month to be her income. 5. The learned Tribunal further awarded Rs. 1000/- for rich diet, transport charges, etc. and thus, total amount of compensation came to Rs. 63,330/-. 6. Being dissatisfied, the Insurance Company has come up with present appeal. 7. Mr.Meena, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance Company has taken a pure question of law in support of this appeal. 5. The learned Tribunal further awarded Rs. 1000/- for rich diet, transport charges, etc. and thus, total amount of compensation came to Rs. 63,330/-. 6. Being dissatisfied, the Insurance Company has come up with present appeal. 7. Mr.Meena, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance Company has taken a pure question of law in support of this appeal. According to Mr.Meena, as admittedly the claimant was travelling in a goods vehicle along with her husband and niece wherein her husband was carrying some goods, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddi and others, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 339 , the Insurance Company cannot have any liability to pay the amount of compensation when the insurance was limited to third party's claim. In other words, according to Mr.Meena, the accident having occurred in the year 1985, in view of the aforesaid decision, the insurer was under no obligation to make payment of the damages suffered to a passenger of such a vehicle in view of the then provision of Section 95(1)(b)(ii) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 8. Mr. Shah, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant has on the other hand opposed the aforesaid contention of Mr.Meena and has contended that the Tribunal below having decided the matter before pronouncement of the judgment in the case of Devireddy Konda Reddy and others (supra), this Court should not interfere with the aforesaid decision as the Tribunal passed the said award according to the then law of the land. 9. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after taking into consideration the decision of Three-Judges-Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Devireddy Konda Reddy and others (supra), I find substance in the contention of Mr.Meena that Insurance Company cannot have any liability in respect of a third party insurance when the claimant was admittedly travelling in the selfsame vehicle as the owner or representative of the owner of the goods. In my view the provisions contained in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will have no application to the facts of the present case as the accident took place prior to coming into operation of the 1988 Act and thus, in view of the aforesaid decision, the award of the Tribunal directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount cannot be supported. 10. I also do not find any substance in the other contention of Mr.Shah that the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Devireddy Konda Reddy and others (supra) should be treated to be prospective. It is now settled law that whenever any law is laid down by Supreme or the High Court, the same should be treated to be the law from the very beginning unless in the said decision it is specifically indicated that the decision will be prospective in nature. In the case of Devireddy Konda Reddy and others (supra), the Supreme Court has not indicated that the said view taken by the Supreme Court should be applied prospectively. 11. I, thus, find that the award passed by the Tribunal below should be modified to this extent that the claimant should be entitled to recover the amount not from the Insurance Company but from the owner of the vehicle. To that extent the award amount is modified. 12. I now propose to take up the Cross-Objection filed by the claimant, thereby praying for enhancement of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 13. At the very outset, I keep it on record that inspite of service of notice of appeal, the owner of the vehicle has not come forward to oppose either the appeal filed by the Insurance Company or the Cross-Objection filed by the claimant. I, therefore, proceed ex-parte. 14. Mr.Shah, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of Cross-objector prayed for enhancement of the amount on the ground that while assessing the amount of income from the business, the Tribunal below did not consider the aspect of "future prospect" of the claimant. In the case before us, the claimant has proved that she was selling milk of buffaloes which she used to maintain and also used to sell such milk to the local dairy. According to her statement, she used to earn Rs. 700/- a month. In the case before us, the claimant has proved that she was selling milk of buffaloes which she used to maintain and also used to sell such milk to the local dairy. According to her statement, she used to earn Rs. 700/- a month. Although no documentary evidence is produced to show the actual amount earned from the business, nevertheless, the Tribunal believed the same and came to the conclusion that the monthly income of the claimant was Rs. 700/- and consequently, applied the multiplier of 15. I find from the material on record that the claimant admitted in her evidence that her eldest daughter was aged 38 years. Such being the position, her case made out in the application that she was aged 45 years was totally disbelieved, but the Tribunal came to the conclusion that she was aged 52 years and applied multiplier of 15 while assessing the amount of compensation. Since the owner of the vehicle or Insurance Company has not disputed the quantum, there is no scope of reducing the said amount in this Cross-Objection. However, as regards the future prospects of the business of the claimant, in my opinion, the claimant being about 52 years of age, there was no scope of future prospect in a business of selling milk from buffaloes owned by her at that juncture of her life and thus, after taking into consideration the fact that the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15, which itself was in excess, I do not find any reason to consider her case of enhancement of the amount. 15. I, thus, find no merit in the Cross-Objection filed by the claimant and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed to the extent indicated above, while the above Cross-Objection filed by the claimant is dismissed. The appeal having been allowed, the claimant is bound under the law to refund the benefit she has received by virtue of interim order passed by this Court during the pendency of the appeal. The claimant is, therefore, directed to refund the amount of interest that she has received by taking aid of the interim order passed in this appeal within two months from this day. The Insurance Company is at liberty to withdraw the amount which it has deposited in the Tribunal below. The claimant is, therefore, directed to refund the amount of interest that she has received by taking aid of the interim order passed in this appeal within two months from this day. The Insurance Company is at liberty to withdraw the amount which it has deposited in the Tribunal below. The Tribunal below is directed to release the amount which is lying in Fixed Deposit in favour of the Insurance Company. 17. The claimant, however, will be entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. Appeal partly allowed.