Nagendra Rai, J.

1. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 1-5-2002, passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) rejecting the claim made by the petitioners as not maintainable u/s. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act)

2. The Office has reported that the Civil Revision is not maintainable. The office note is not correct. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anirudh Prasad Ambasta V/s. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1990 Patna 49, in paragraph 23, has held that the District Judge, who is functioning as a Claims Tribunal, is not only within the administrative control of the High Court but also subordinate to it u/s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, it is held that the Civil Revision is maintainable.

3. The question, which falls for consideration in this case, is as to whether the accident, for which the compensation has been claimed under the provisions of the Act, arose out of the use of motor vehicle. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has held that the death of the deceased was a murder simpliciter and as such it cannot be termed as a death or permanent disablement due to accident ari