V. K. Khanna, C.J.— The present civil revision came up for hearing before Hon'ble Justice Smti M. Sharma who was of the opinion that the decision of this Court reported in 1993 (1) GLJ184 (United India Insurance Co Ltd vs. KH Choudhury) is not a good law. The entire case was thereafter placed before the Full Bench. 2. We have heard Mr, M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. BB Narzary, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1. It may be mentioned at the very outset that on the date of hearing the operative portion of the judgment was pronounced in the open Court and the reasons are now being placed on the record of the case. 3. The brief facts of the case are, that the opposite party No.1 preferred MAC Case No.58 of 1994 before the MACT, Darrang, claiming compensation on the demise of her husband as a result of a vehicular accident on 27.3.94. At the material time, the deceased was travelling by a truck and the vehicle was also duly insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. On 23.2.95 and thereafter on 27.3.95 the Tribunal passed an order directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- being the amount of compensation payable on no fault liability (as per section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended j by Act 54 of 1994). 4. The only point which has been raised in this petition for determination is as to whether the provisions of section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act (as amended by Act 54 of 1994) Acts prospectively or retrospectively. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we were of the opinion that the defence of the Insurance Company which is raised in the claim petition has yet to be finally determined by the Tribunal and the petition has been filed at the stage when that question has not been decided by the Tribunal and the petitioner wants that question to be determined by this Court. 6. On the date of hearing, the reasoned impugned order was produced before us by the counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 1 Mr. 6. On the date of hearing, the reasoned impugned order was produced before us by the counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 1 Mr. BB Narzary which clearly shows that the Tribunal itself had taken the view that the Insurance Company is debarred to raise any plea of its liability at the stage of considering the matter of no fault liability under section 140 of the MV Act, 1988. This view taken by the Tribunal, in our opinion, is correct and requires no intereference. 7. From the reasoned order of the Tribunal dated 2.3.95 which has been produced before us, it is clear that the final determination on the aforesaid question has yet to be done by the Tribunal. If that be so, the view taken by the Tribunal on 2.3.95 will be subject to the final determination which will be arrived at by the Tribunal in accordance with law after taking into account the evidence which will be led by the parties including the Insurance Company. 8. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference in exercise of this Court's revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Coe of Civil Procedure at this stage. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed subject to the aforesaid observations. The interim order passed by this Court on 19.5.95 is vacated. However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.