Basant, J.

1. How is the expression “accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle” in Sec.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the M.V. Act’) to be construed? Does that expression take in every accident suffered in the course of use of a motor vehicle? Is the causal connection that the accident was suffered when the victim was actually traveling in a motor vehicle sufficient? Can the expression “accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle” be read down to mean “accident connected with the use of the motor vehicle”? Does the purpose and context of Sec.163A of the M.V. Act justify such an expansion of meaning for the expression? These are the first set of questions that arise in these appeals.

2. The second question that arises for determination is as to how the expression “permanent disablement” in the body of Sec.163A is to be understood? This, in turn, calls for an interpretation of the scope and ambit of Entries 25, 26 and 26A of Part II Schedule I of the Workmen’s Compensation Act also.

3. To the vitally relevant facts at the outset. The claimant Remya, a minor girl aged about 12 years suffered injuries while she was traveling in an autorickshaw owned