ORDER Lehar Singh Mehta, J.—This is an application filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for the award of compensation, arising out of a motor accident. 2. The averments in the application are that on 10.4.65, at about 4.30 p.m. the non-applicant Dayaram was bringing his truck RJQ 3945 by pushing it from his house at Sardarpura-Road No. 3, Jodhpur. When Dayaram came in front of the bungalow of Mr. Shivlal T. Porwal, he called some boys and asked them to push the truck and in return he promised to give them a ride over the truck. As soon as the vehicle took a turn towards the Chopasni Road from Mr. Porwal's Bungalow on the third road, the truck began to move speedily as there was a slope. The deceased Pravin was also one of the boys, who were pushing the truck. As the truck gained speed, some of the boys, including Pravin, got upon the chassis of the truck. Dayaram saw Pravin and others getting upon the chassis, but he neither stopped them from doing so, nor did he stop the truck and get the boys step down from the chassis. When the truck moved at some distance, Pravin wanted to get down from the truck. At that time, the right leg of the boy went inside between the two rear wheels and the leg could not be taken out. Pravin cried, but Dayaram paid no heed to it, and with the revolving of the wheel Pravin was dashed headlong on the road and the wheels moved over his head and body. Even then no attempt was made by Dayaram to stop the truck. The deceased Pravin received certain injuries over his head, as a result of which, he died, instantaneously on the spot. The father and mother of the deceased Pravin, Shrikishan and Mrs. Rukmani Devi respectively, claimed a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for the loss of life of Pravin. 3. On receipt of the above application, notices were issued to Dayaram and the Northern India General Insurance Company. On the 7th of December, 1965, the said Insurance Company submitted its reply. In that reply, a preliminary objection was made that this Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition. 20,000/- for the loss of life of Pravin. 3. On receipt of the above application, notices were issued to Dayaram and the Northern India General Insurance Company. On the 7th of December, 1965, the said Insurance Company submitted its reply. In that reply, a preliminary objection was made that this Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition. The claim has not arisen out of the use of a motor vehicle and that the alleged vehicle was not a motor vehicle, within the meaning of the term as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 4. The first question to be determined in this case is whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain this application. 5. Under Section 110, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Claims Tribunal is constituted for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of the motor vehicles. In other words, the accident, for which this Tribunal can determine the claim, must arise out of the use of motor vehicles. The words 'motor vehicle' have been defined in Section 2(18) of the Act. The definition runs as follows: Motor vehicle means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer, but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted, for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises. From this definition, it is plain that the vehicle must be a mechanically propelled vehicle and it also includes a chassis. Unless there is a mechanically propelled vehicle, it cannot be said that the accident took place out of the use of motor vehicle, and if there is no motor vehicle, the Claims Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to entertain the application. 6. In para 10 of the application, the applicants have stated that the vehicle, which was being driven by the boys, had neither any engine nor any brake. It had no body at its back, but there was only a chassis, being moved by the boys and Dayaram. 6. In para 10 of the application, the applicants have stated that the vehicle, which was being driven by the boys, had neither any engine nor any brake. It had no body at its back, but there was only a chassis, being moved by the boys and Dayaram. Such a body does not fall within the definition of the term 'motor vehicle', quoted above, and as such, this Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. 7. I, therefore, accept the objection raised on behalf of Northern India General Insurance Company, and reject this application for want of jurisdiction. No order as to costs.