Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.— Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Atul Mishra, appearing for respondent nos. 7 to 9. According to office report, notices to private respondents have not been received back. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 22.09.1989 passed by Sri D.C. Srivastava, District Judge, Bahraich in MACP No. 34/70 of 1986. The Claim petition under Section 110-A was filed by the claimants claiming compensation for the death of Rajendra Singh in an accident dated 03.02.1986 at 5:00 p.m. Deceased was a driver in PWD. Deceased and driver Chandra Bhan were going by Tractor no. UPF 319, owned by PWD, to pull out the defective roller. Chandra Bhan was driver, when the tractor reached few yards from village Bairihwa, the Tractor turned turtle and Rajendra Singh died on the spot. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 17,000/- etc. fixing liability to pay compensation upon driver/appellant in this Court. This very order has been impugned in this appeal. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that while discussing the issue nos. 3 and 7, Tribunal had come to conclusion that driver was not negligent in driving the vehicle, as such, no liability can be passed upon the appellant, especially when Tribunal was acting under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Sri Atul Mishra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 7 to 9 tried to justify the award passed by Tribunal and stated that there is no authorization given by the employer to driver to permit any passenger on Tractor, as such, liability was rightly passed upon the driver. The claim petition was filed under Section 110-A of the Act. After discussing the evidence in detail, Tribunal had recorded a finding that it could not be established that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Tractor no. UPF 319. While discussing the issue nos. 3 & 7, Tribunal came to conclusion that since driver was not negligent, no liability can be passed upon him and the case becomes a case of "no fault liability" and the case is covered under Section 92-A of the Act. Under Section 92-A of the Act, the liability can be fastened upon the owner of the vehicle and not upon the driver. Under Section 92-A of the Act, the liability can be fastened upon the owner of the vehicle and not upon the driver. Relevant Section 92-A(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is being reproduced below:- "(1) Where the 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 vehicle 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 provision of this section." In the case of Yallwwa and others Vs. National Insuracne Co. Ltd. and another [2007(25) LCD 1528], Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the principle of no fault liability came to conclusion that owners of the vehicle are liable. Language of Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is para materia with the language of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Consequently, decision given by Apex Court fortified the view that owner alone can be liable. No other point has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant. In this view of the matter, impugned order is modified to the extent that instead of opposite no. 4, compensation will be paid by respondent nos. 1 to 3. Rest of the award is confirmed. Appeal is partly allowed. Award dated 22.09.1989 is confirmed. However, amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal will be paid by respondent nos. 1 to 3. Respondent no. 4-appellant is held not liable to pay any amount as compensation. _____________