Accident was reasonably proximate to the use of motor vehicle.

P. Sathasivam, J.

United India Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri dated 23-8-1995 made in M.C.O.P.No. 138 of 1994, has preferred the above appeal.

2. In respect of death of one Absar in a motor accident, that had taken place on 7-12-91, the claimants/respondents 1 and 2 herein-parents of the deceased preferred a claim for Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant, father of the deceased got himself examined as P.W.1 and he also examined one Syed Abdul Kalam as P.W.2, besides marking Exs. P-1 and P-2 in support of his claim for compensation. On the side of the Insurance Company, Insurance Policy has been marked as Ex. R-1. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary and after holding that the Insurance Company of the vehicle in question were liable to pay compensation, passed an award for Rs.71,600/- with interest at 12 per cent from the date of petition till date of deposit. Questioning its liability, the United India Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents 1 and 2.

3. Mr. M.S. Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellant, by drawing our attention to Sections 147 (i) (b) (i) and 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also to the fact that the death was occasioned only due to fire accident and not when the vehicle was put to use, as contemplated under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, would contend that the direction to the appellant insurance company for payment of compensation amount cannot be sustained. On the other hand, Mr. D. Sivakumaran, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, would contend that the deceased sustained fatal injuries due to the fire accident out of the use of motor vehicle; hence the Tribunal is fully justified in fastening the entire liability on the insurance company; accordingly prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions.

5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is useful to refer the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 147 speaks about requirements of policies and limits of liability.

"Section 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which-

(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and

(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)-

(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person including, owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;

The other section referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant is Section 165 which deals with Claims Tribunals.

"Section 165. Claims Tribunals.- A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death if, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both."

By pointing out the language used in both these provisions, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the accident or injury or death should be due to use of motor vehicles. In other words, according to him, the claimants are entitled to file a claim for compensation only if their son died in respect of an accident due to the use of motor vehicle. In the present case, it is seen from the evidence of P.W.2, Syed Abdul Salam, who is said to be the eye witness, that when the d