Honble ARORA, J. –These two appeals arise out of the judgment/award dated 14.1.87 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalore, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal dismissed both the claim petitions filed by the appellant- claimants on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims.

(2). Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 22.11.83 Nathu Ram- the driver of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation at about 4.30 p.m. parked the bus No. RRM 1473 at the Bus Stand, Jalore. The bus was to commence its journey to Bhinmal. The booking of this bus started. The passengers bought the tickets from the Booking Window and after buying the tickets, boarded the bus. Smt. Rukmani W/o Ram Chandra alias Ram Kishan, Indra D/o Ram Chandra, Manju D/o Kesri Mal, Bajrang S/o Ram Chandra, Bhanwari D/o Misri Mal and other passengers boarded the bus after buying the tickets. Defendant No.5 Banshi Lal, also, boarded the bus. He was carrying one big Jariken and two containers of five litres each containing kerosene oil. Banshi Lal, in order to smoke Biri, lit the match- strick. The kersene caught the fire and on account of the flames of the fire, Smt. Rukmani, Indra and Manju got severe burn injuries. They were taken to the hospital in an ambulance where they succumbed to the injuries. Rukmani breathed her last on 24.11.83 while Indra died on 23.11.83 at about 4.00 p.m. Ram Chandra the husband, Kailash and Bajrang-the sons of deceased Rukmani, on 1.5.84, filed the claim petition No. 5/84 before the Tribunal for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 2,77,000/-. Ram Chandra, the father of deceased Miss Indra, also, filed another claim petition No.6 of 1984 for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 3,44,000/- on account of death of his daughter Miss Indra. Both the claim petitions were opposed by the defendants and the defendants file the written statement to the claim petitioner. In the written statements, all the defendants took the objection that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims because the accident involving the death of Smt. Rukmani and Miss Indra did not arise out of the `use of the motor vehicle. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after hearing the respective parties, up-held the objection raised by the defendants by a common order dated 14.1.87 and dismissed both the claim petitions and refused to adjudicate the claims. It is against this award that the appellants have filed these appeals.

(3). It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the accident, in which the death of Smt. Rukmani and Miss Indra took place, occurred in the course of user of the bus for the carriage of passengers and, therefore, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the claims which arose out of the motor vehicle accident and the learned Judge of the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim petitions filed by the claimants on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the claims. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that the bus was lying immobile at the time when the accident took place and the accident did not arise out of the use of the motor vehicle and, threfore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction had no jurisdiction to deal with the claims and the learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in dismissing the claim petitions filed by the claimants.

(4). I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

(5). Section 110 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 (for short, `the Act) deals with the Claims Tribunals. Sub-section (1) of Section 110 of the Act authorises the State Government to constitute Motor Accident Claims Tribunals for the purpose of adjudicating upon the claims for compensation in respect of the accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons, arising out of the use of the motor vehicles, or damages to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document