In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 2058 of 1996 & Cross Objections No.36-CII of 1997 Date of decision: July 07, 2009 National Insurance Company Limited .. Appellant Vs. Kanta and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate. Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate A.N. Jindal, J This appeal preferred by the Insurance Company-appellant (herein referred to as 'the appellant') is against the award dated 1.12.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (herein referred as 'the Tribunal'), whereby, it awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants- respondents No.1 to 3 (herein referred as 'the respondents No.1 to 3) on account of no fault liability. Since the accident had occurred on 12.12.1993, therefore, the point raised by the Insurance Company is that amendment with regard to enhancement of compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/-, on account of no fault liability does not apply retrospectively. Faced with the situation, Hon'ble Single Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench for decision. Hon'ble Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla, vide order dated 10.12.2007, observed as under :- “Thus, we hold that the amendment to Section 140 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, enhancing the amount of no fault liability compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/-, in case of death, would apply retrospectively and we answer accordingly.” F.A.O. No. 2058 of 1996 & Cross Objections No.36-CII of 1997 -2- On receipt back of the reference, arguments heard. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate has stated that only point raised in this appeal has already been answered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, but he keeps his reservations regarding the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench and insists that the claimants are entitled only for a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of no fault liability. Since the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has already answered the reference, nothing remains to be decided on merits. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 also prays for dismissal of the appeal. Thus, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, answering the reference, this appeal stands dismissed. In view of the appeal having been dismissed, no grounds to enhance the compensation are made out, hence, the cross objections petition are allowed. July 07, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge