JUDGMENT :

a. This is an appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, dated 31.03.2015. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:

1. The respondents 1 to 5, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Mohammad Shafi Geela, on 14th March 2011.

2. It was stated that the deceased had been engaged as a labourer with the vehicle bearing registration no. JK01-2445 owned by respondent no. 6, for purposes of loading stones in the truck in a Stone Quarry also owned by respondent no. 6.

3. Response was filed to the claim petition in which a defence was taken inter-alia that the Insurance Company was not liable on the ground that the offending vehicle which was insured by the Company was stationary and therefore, could not be said to be involved in a motor vehicle accident arising out of the use of the said vehicle as it was stationary.

4. Upon the response having been filed the following issues were framed:

i. Whether on 14.03.2011, the deceased namely Mohammad Shafi Geela while loading stones on to the vehicle (tipper) bearing registration No. JK01-2445 at Quarry Zantraj, Khrew, and when some stones fell from the Quarry the deceased got seriously injured due to which the deceased received multiple injuries over his body and was immediately rushed to the hospital and later on succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.

ii. Whether the driver was knowingly plying the offending vehicle with invalid and ineffective DL and other vehicular documents like RC etc. on the material date of accident, if yes, the insured has committed breach of insurance contract absolving the respondent insurance company from its liability on account of petitioner’s claim.

iii. In case the issue no. 1, is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to, from whom and in what proportion.

iv. Relief.

5. By virtue of Judgment and award dated 31.03.2015, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded an amount of Rs. 4,17,400/- in favour of the claimants and hence, the present appeal.

6. On a perusal of the evidence, which was discussed by the Tribunal and is on record, it can be seen that the claimants had succeeded in proving that the deceased had been hit by stones in the Quarry and had received injuries which later proved to be fatal while he was not only engaged in the process of loading stones in the vehicle owned by Respondent no. 6, but also was in the vehicle at the time when he was so hit by the stones.

7. Petitioner’s witness Ghulam Mohammad, appears to have made a statement in this regard during the cross-examination by the counsel for the Insurance Company. It is thus, clear that the deceased had died during the period when he was engaged as a labourer with the tipper and was involved in loading of the stones in the tipper which no doubt was stationary.

8. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the Insurance Company could absolve itself of its liability to indemnify the insured only because the vehicle in question was stationary. The answer to the aforementioned proposition is clearly in the negative in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in “Shivaji Dayanand Patil and Another Vs. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More, AIR 1991 (SC) 1769” wherein the Court held that the expression “arising out of” had a much wider connotation than the expression “caused by” which indicated that for purposes of awarding compensation, the casual relationship between the use of the motor vehicle and the accident resulting in death or permanent disability was not required to be direct and proximate and that it could be less immediate.

It was therefore, held that the construction of the expression “arising out of the use of a Motor Vehicle” enlarged the field of protection made available to the victims of an accident and was in consonance with t