(1.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by appellant Gulam Nabi Khan who was the applicant in Claim Case No. 27/99/80/94 which was disposed of on 23rd May, 2000 by 7th Additional District Judge -cum -Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Gaya whereby he has been pleased to reject the claim application of the appellants filed under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter will be called "M.V. Act").
(2.) DURING course of rgument, it has been submitted by the learned Advocate of the appellants that the lower court record will show that on 29.11.1995 the Tribunal passed an order for holding enquiry under Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act and thereafter the Tribunal examined as many as eleven witnesses on behalf of the applicant and two witnesses on behalf of the opposite party i.e. the owner of the vehicle. The learned Advocate of the appellants submitted that the depositions of all the witnesses will show that the evidences were recorded under the provision of Section 140 of the M.V. Act which goes to show that the enquiry was held for the purpose of ascertaining '' whether the appellants were entitled to get compensation under "no fault liability" as provided under Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act and so, on the basis of that very enquiry, the claim application filed under Sec. 166 of the M.V. Act could not be finally disposed of but the learned Tribunal while passing the order on the application under Sec. 140 of the Act, finally disposed of the claim application filed under Sec. 166 of the M.V. Act which is illegal. On that ground alone, the learned Advocate of the appellants prayed to set aside the impugned judgment.
(3.) ON hearing the learned Advocates of both sides and on perusing the lower court 'srecord, I am satisfied that the impugned order whereby the entire claim application filed under Sec. 166 of the M.V. Act was rejected by the Tribunal, was passed while the Tribunal was making order on the application filed under Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act after conducting enquiry under the said Section.