The word 'use' in S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act covers all employments of motor vehicles, and any accident arising in the course of such use is liable for compensation through the Tribunal.

1. The 1st respondent is the widow of one V.K. Sreedharan Nambiar who died on 23-10-1981 in the Calicut Medical College Hospital as a result of burns sustained while travelling in a bus KLN 723 belonging to the appellant on 12-10-1981. He was a passenger in the bus on its 1.40 p.m. trip from Cannanore to Vellachal. When the bus reached near a place called Macheri Srambi, a petrol can kept in a gunny bag under the back seat of the bus caught fire from a beedi thrown by a passenger in the bus. The deceased who was sitting in the back seat of the bus, was engulfed in the fire and was severely burnt. He was taken to the Headquarters Hospital at Cannanore and then on to the Medical College, at Calicut for treatment, where he succumbed to the injuries on 23-10-1981. The claim was therefore filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tellicherry, under S.110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act is brief), by the wife of the deceased for compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- on the allegation that the deceased was a pharmacist-cum-homeo doctor earning not less than Rs. 1,000/- per month.

2. The appellant, bus-owner, claimed that the fire was caused on account of the negligence of the deceased himself. According to him, the deceased was smoking in the bus, despite warning by the conductor. The bus was halted at the Cannanore bus stand at about 1.00 p.m., to commence its onward journey to Vellachal at 1.40 p.m. The driver and the conductor had gone for their noon meals during which time the bus had got loaded with passengers and luggage. The deceased, who had boarded the bus was in an inebriated condition. After the bus had proceeded for about 6. K.M. on its journey, it was stopped for some passengers to get down. At that time, the deceased lit a cigarette and "probably" be dropped the burning match stick on his lap, causing his clothes to burn. The sparks from this fire ignited the gunny bag containing the petrol can. Despite the fire, and the escape of the other passengers from the bus, the deceased remained sitting amidst the flames. The death of the deceased was therefore attributable to his own negligence. The appellant also contested the amount of income which the deceased was alleged to be earning.

3. The insurer, who was the second respondent in the proceedings, also contested the claim.

4. The Tribunal considered the evidence in detail and came to the conclusion that it was the "culpable negligence" of the employees of the appellant that had resulted in the accident. The deceased sustained the injuries which resulted in his death while travelling in the bus as a passenger. The Tribunal then went on to consider the question of quantum of damages, and fixed the dependence of the claimant wife at Rs. 150/- per month; or Rs. 1,800/- per year. Adopting 16 as a reasonable multiple, the compensation payable came to Rs. 28,800/-, out of which a margin was allowed for uncertainties in life, and for accelerated payment. The compensation to be paid was thus fixed at Rs. 26,000/-. A sum of Rs. 3,000/- was also awarded for loss of consortium. The total compensation payable was thus determined as Rs. 29,000/-, out of which the insurer was liable to the extent of R.5,000/-. The balance was directed to be paid by the appellant. The award was passed accordingly.

5. The owner of the bus challenges this award. The claimant has cross-appealed for award of the entire amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- claimed by her in petition under S.110A.

6. The Tribunal has found that the accident was caused due to the culpable negligence of the employees of the appellent. In doing so, the entire evidence in the matter has been discussed in detail by the Tribunal. The evidence has been carefully analysed, the various aspects considered and all possibilities adverted to before casting the blame on the employees of the appellant. We are in agreement with this finding of the Tribunal. We may in particular note that R.361(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle