1 fa1396.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1396 OF 2010 Dilip Bapusaheb Mane ... Appellant vs. Aruna Kiran Madane & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi for the appellant Mr.Mahindra Deshmukh for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr.KMC Legal Venture for respondent no.6 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 4, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4. The challenge in this appeal is to the Award made under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claim petition was not maintainable before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the provisions of the said Act of 1988. 2 The aforesaid contention was not raised before the Tribunal. The claim petition filed under section 140 of the said Act is required to be disposed of expeditiously by adopting summary procedure. There is no dispute regarding the involvement of the vehicle of the appellant in the accident. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 3 It is obvious that the findings recorded by the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition under section 140 of the said Act of 1988 do not operate as res 2 fa1396.sxw judicata in the claim petition under section 166 of the said Act of 1988. While deciding the main claim petition under section 166 of the said Act, it will be open for the appellant to raise all permissible contentions including the contention regarding non maintainability of the claim petition. 4 Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for interference. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 5 Civil Application no.2802 of 2009 does not survive and the same is disposed of. 6 On the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant, time of eight weeks is granted to deposit the decretal amount with the Tribunal. JUDGE