JUDGMENT The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 8.5.95 of the 1st Addl. M.A.C.T., Indore passed in claim case No. 101/85 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant here has been dismissed. The brief history of the case is that the appellant is the owner of Bajaj Super Scooter, Model-80 No. CPO- 712. He had taken it for repairs to respondent No. 3 here. During the process of repair the engine was started and a rubber-piece was thrown and hit the appellant on his eye. The appellant had to be taken to Eye-specialist and was treated. He had to spent some money. He thereafter filed a claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act for an award of Rs. 4,51,900/- as damages. Hence this appeal. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that the appellant had a comprehensive insurance. He himself took it to respondent No. 3 for repairs and the same was being done under his orders. Appellant sustained injury during that process. Hence, he is entitled for the compensation as claimed by him. The claim petition for injury or death sustained by a motor-vehicle can be filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. But Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award compensation where the injuries have been sustained not during the use of the vehicle. In this case the scooter was being repaired by respondent No. 3 inside his work-shop. It was during that process of repair that the Engine was started, a rubber piece was thrown and hit the appellant on the eye. This cannot he treated to be an accident which occurred during the use of the vehicle. There was no use of vehicle. The engine was started for experiment as to whether the same was working properly or not and the same was also done inside the work-shop. It is not a case where a third party has sustained injuries by a vehicle moved after it was stopped at a place or was driven for the purpose of repairs or testing the engine and such other machines. In our opinion, therefore the claim petition before the M.A.C.T. is not maintainable and has rightly been held so. However, the appellant is free to file a suit for compensation against respondents or any of the respondents, if the law permits. In view of above there is no substance in this appeal. In our opinion, therefore the claim petition before the M.A.C.T. is not maintainable and has rightly been held so. However, the appellant is free to file a suit for compensation against respondents or any of the respondents, if the law permits. In view of above there is no substance in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed without notice to other-side.