The judgment establishes the requirement to prove negligence in a motor accident claim case and the interpretation of the term 'arising out of the use of the motor vehicle' as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

D. G. Deshpande, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Hegde for the appellant-original claimant in this appeal arising out of the judgment of the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satara and also Mr. Barve for respondents, i. e. , owner and insurance company.

( 2 ) THE accident that occurred in this case was very peculiar. A petrol tanker No. MXL 7461 was proceeding from Pune to bangalore by National Highway No. 4. The said tanker dashed against the rear portion of another truck which was coming from opposite direction. The petrol tanker turned turtle. Petrol started leaking from the tanker. Many villagers assembled to collect the petrol and suddenly explosion took place or the petrol caught fire as a result of which 46 persons died. All of them filed separate claim petitions and the present appellant was one of the petitioners before the M. A. C. T. , Satara. His claim petition came to be dismissed and hence he has filed this appeal.

( 3 ) THE claim was mainly against the insurance company and the owner of the petrol tanker. Claim was strongly opposed by both of them. The Tribunal therefore framed following issues: (1) Whether it is proved that the incident of giving dash to one truck by the petrol tanker MXL 7461, took place at about 3 a. m. on 29. 10. 1987? (2) Whether it is proved that applicant, who went near the scene of accident, sustained injuries at about 7 a. m. due to explosion and fire to petrol tanker MXL 7461? (3) Whether sustaining of injuries was arising out of use of the petrol tanker and was the result of negligence on the part of the petrol tanker driver? (4) Whether the Claims Tribunal under motor Vehicles Act, has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the claim petition? (5) Whether the applicant was entitled to claim compensation?

( 4 ) THE Claims Tribunal gave finding in affirmative on issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and negative findings on crucial issue Nos. 3 and 5, and dismissed the claim petition and, therefore, this appeal.

( 5 ) FROM para 14 of the judgment of the tribunal, it is clear that there were in all 44 claim petitions filed by different victims. The main claim petition was No. 168 of 1988 and issues were framed in that petition and the Tribunal rightly concluded that decision of Claim Petition No. 168 of 1988 and the issues therein will decide the fate of all other claim petitions because all those Claim Petition Nos. 168 to 179 and 181 to 210 of 1988 were arising out of one and the same accident.

( 6 ) SO far as accident is concerned, it is in two parts. Firstly, there was a dash between the petrol tanker and truck and it was on 29. 10. 1987 at about 3 a. m. and it was this accident that resulted in tilting of the tanker on the road and then petrol started leaking, villagers assembled to collect petrol and then petrol caught fire wherein there was huge loss of human life. The present appellant-claimant sustained injuries.

( 7 ) WHILE deciding the main issue No. 3, i. e. , whether injuries were sustained by the claimant out of the use of the petrol tanker and whether it was a result of negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker, the claims Tribunal relied upon the evidence of the opponents-respondents. Opponent- respondent No. 1, i. e. , owner examined himself, i. e. , Shivaji Dayanu Patil as opponent witness No. 1 at Exh. 32 and one dhondiram Nanas Mali as opponent witness No. 2, who was working on the tanker involved in the accident. The said Dhondiram Mali was also the driver of the tanker. It is necessary to find out what the driver has to say about the entire episode before considering the case of the appellant.

( 8 ) DHONDIRAM Mali, O. W. No. 2, has stated that on the date of the accident he was driving the tanker from Bombay to miraj. The tanker was loaded with 12000 litres of petrol at Shivadi. He left Shivadi at 1 p. m. on 28. 10. 1987. He had some halts in between and then at about 2. 30 a. m. he reached near village Kavthe. He was driving towards Miraj and with a speed of 40 (the Tribunal ha