1. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (for short "Tribunal") overruled the objection raised about its jurisdiction to try the claim petition under the provision of Motor Accident Act of 1988 (for short "Act of 1988"). The jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal was challenged on the plea that police concerned has registered a case under Section 304 RPC. 2. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that when the case is registered under Section 304 RPC, then learned Tribunal does not get the jurisdiction to entertain the petition under the Act of 1988. Section 165 of Act of 1988 is reproduced as under: "165. Claims Tribunals. (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereinafter this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification 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 motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both." 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the matter. 4. Learned Tribunal has negatived the contention raised about its jurisdiction to try and hear petition by referring to Section 165 of Act of 1988. In order to maintain the claim petition two conditions are required to be satisfied in terms of Section 165 of Act of 1988 viz. (i) that the accident has arisen out of the use of the motor vehicles, and (ii) the accident has resulted in bodily injury to a person who is making the claims or the death of the person whose legal representative are making the claims. 5. The claim petition is based on the allegation that accident has arisen out of the use of the motor vehicle which resulted in death of the person. The proceedings in criminal investigation and in criminal trial may not, in all circumstances, deter a civil Court/Tribunal to proceed with the trial/enquiry of a case. The procedure provided for conducting investigation and trying a criminal case is different than that of conducting of enquiry by the learned MACT for arriving at a just and lawful conclusion. The proceedings in criminal investigation and in criminal trial may not, in all circumstances, deter a civil Court/Tribunal to proceed with the trial/enquiry of a case. The procedure provided for conducting investigation and trying a criminal case is different than that of conducting of enquiry by the learned MACT for arriving at a just and lawful conclusion. The two proceedings may be overlapping in certain areas but that does not mean that a civil Court/Tribunal loses its jurisdiction to enquire into the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6. The learned Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of this case, has rightly observed that it has jurisdiction to entertain and try the claim petition. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the other issues which are required to be adjudicated upon have not been framed. Learned counsel for petitioner is at liberty to make application and learned Tribunal is requested to deal with the application in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon. Petition dismissed.