( 1 ) THIS appeal was filed by the claimants in O. P. No. 41 of 1989 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Godavari District, Eluru.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows :on 13-6-1988 at about 11. 00 a. m. a lorry bearing No. AHK 2349 was stationed in a narrow lane before the Transport Office, Tanuku. It was stationed precariously and in slanting position. The 1st respondent is the Driver of the lorry. The lorry was loaded with cotton bales and it is stated that they were not tightly fastened. The height of the lorry with load is 14 from the ground level, which is in violation of the Motor Vehicles Rules. When the hamalies climbed the lorry, one of the heavy cotton bales, which was in loose condition, slipped and fell on the deceased, who was standing on the road margin. He sustained a fatal injury and while he was being taken to the hospital, he died on the way. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the Lorry. The 3rd respondent is the Transport Corporation and 4th respondent is the Insurance Company. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants, who are the wife and children, filed OP before the Tribunal.

( 3 ) BEFORE the tribunal, Respondents 1 and 2 were set ex parte. The 3rd and 4th respondents filed their counter denying the allegations made in the O. P. The 4th respondent Insurance Company subsequently filed another additional counter-affidavit contending that the policy issued by the Company does not cover the risk of the alleged accident, and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. After framing the issues, the tribunal examined the witnesses, and rejected the claim of the claimants on the ground that the accident took place due to wrong handling of the cotton bales by the hamalies and there is no negligence on the part of the driver-1st respondent, and therefore, respondents 1 to 4 are not liable to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been filed.

( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that though the lorry was stationed precariously, the mishap took place due to the negligence of the driver, and hence, the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimants. He also contended that height of the lorry exceeds the ramble height.

( 5 ) THE counsel for the appellants further contended that the accident in this case took place during the use of the motor vehicle only, and such use need not necessarily be so intimate and closely direct as to make it a motor accident in the sense that the expression should be read as used in common parlance, and as such, the accident should be held to have taken place during the use of the Motor Vehicle. The test whether the accident was reasonably proximate to the use of a motor vehicle, or whether or not the motor vehicle was in motion, will then have to be decided. The provisions for dealing with the award of compensation being intended for a sublime social objective, their Lordships of the High Court of Kerala on the said principle gave a finding declining to give a narrow interpretation for the word use and held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

( 6 ) THE next contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Judge has rejected the claim of the appellants on the ground that Condition No. 2 of the policy specifically stated that the company shall not be liable to pay compensation in respect of death, injury or damage caused or arising beyond the limits of any carriage way or the thoroughfare in connection with the bringing of load to the motor vehicle for loading thereof or taking away of the load from the motor vehicle after loading therefrom. Basing on the said condition the learned Judge rejected the claim. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the deceased is a third-party to the Insurance Company, as well as the owner of the vehicle, he is not an