JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This revision has arisen out of an order, dated 27.8.1997, passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'M.V. Act'), in T.S.(MAC) No. 12/95, by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Third), North Tripura, Dharmanagar, directing the present petitioner, as the owner of the offending vehicle, to pay compensation of an amount of Rs. 50,000 to the claimants, who are 4(four) in numbers and legal representatives of deceased Ramkumar Nath, who died in a motor vehicular accident. 2. I have heard Mr. D.R Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2. 3. While considering this revision, what needs to be noted is that the claimants-opposite parties had made an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation for the death of Ramkumar Nath, who, while travelling in the offending vehicle, had died, and, pending determination of this application, the claimants also made an application under Section 140 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation, on the principle of no fault, for the death of the said deceased. 4. On hearing learned Counsel for the parties on the above application, the learned Tribunal, vide the impugned order, dated 27.8.1997, aforementioned, concluded that the vehicle, in question, was not covered by any insurance policy and accordingly directed the present petitioner, as owner of the said vehicle, to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000. It is this direction as indicated hereinabove, which stands impugned in the present revision. 5. While considering the present revision, it is of utmost importance to note that an application under Section 140 of the M.V. Act may be made pending disposal of an application made under Section 166or Section 163A. If any order for payment of compensation on the principle of no fault is made under Section 140, the same shall be in terms of the proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 140 and the same shall also be subject to the final decision on the application made under Section 166 or Section163A, as the case may be. Viewed from this angle, the compensation, so awarded, under Section140 will be an interim order. Viewed from this angle, the compensation, so awarded, under Section140 will be an interim order. However, when an application is made under Section 140 simpliciter and no further application is made under Section 166 or Section 163A, the order made under Section 140would be a final order. In other words, when an order is made under Section 140 pending disposal of the application for compensation made under Section 166 or Section 163A, such an order will be an interim order. 6. In the case at hand, the learned Tribunal has directed the present petitioner to pay the compensation on the principle of no fault and since this direction is interim and in conclusive by nature and as the same does not decide the lis or the dispute between the parties concerned, such an interim or inconclusive order is no longer revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code of 2002"). (See Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers and Ors. reported in [2003] 3 SCR 762 and Surya Devi Rai v. Ram Chancier Rai and Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC 3044 ). 7. It may also be noted that though the impugned order was passed before coming into force of the Code of 2002, the revisional powers contained in Section 115 cannot be exercised, for, the revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of 2002 can, now, be exercised in terms of the provisions of the presently amended Code only and not in accordance with the provisions of Section 115 as the same existed before coming into force of the Code of 2002. Viewed from this angle, it is dear that though the impugned order was passed before coming into force of the Code of 2002, the same would be governed by the Code of 2002 and such an order, being interim in nature, is not maintainable (see Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society (supra)). 8. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this revision petition fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 9. No order as to costs. 10. Send back the LCRs. Revision petition dismissed