An accident that occurs as a result of the negligence of a driver in parking a motor vehicle on a slope without taking adequate precautions to prevent it from rolling down arises out of the use of a motor vehicle and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain a claim for compensation arising out of such an accident.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the claimant under Section 110d of the Motor Vehicles act against the order dated 27-3-1974 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Bhopal, in Misc. Civil Case No. 19 of 1967, rejecting the entire claim arising out of a motor accident. The Tribunal has, however, held that in ease the claimant was entitled to the award of any compensation, the amount of Rs. 5,000 would be adequate compensation in its view.

( 2 ) ON 16-1-1967, the claimant V. G. Sumant who was posted as Post Master at balaghat, happened to be in Bhopal. That day In the evening while he was in the market for making some purchases from a hardware shop in Jumerati mohalla, Bhopal, and happened to be sitting on a stool outside the shop, a jeep car MPB 2844 owned by respondent No. 2 Shivnarayan Seth was parked at some distance from where he was sitting. Respondent No. 1 Shailendra Kumar, a minor son of respondent No. 2, was alleged to have driven the jeep negligently as a result of which it ran over the claimant fracturing his right ankle. The claimant contends that he spent about Rs. 1,000 over his treatment. In all, compensation of Rs. 50,000 was claimed. Respondent No. 3 is the insurance Company with which the said jeep was insured.

( 3 ) THE defence of respondents l and 2 was that the jeep was parked near the shop of respondent No. 2 when some children got into the jeep without the knowledge or consent of its owner the respondent No. 2 and it appears that somehow the jeep was set in motion by the mischievous children who had got into the motor vehicle with the result that the jeep started sliding down the slope on the road and injured the claimant who happened to be sitting on the road. It was also contended that the accident did not occur as a result of the use of the motor vehicle on account of which the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the motor vehicle was set in motion in the manner alleged by the respondents while it was parked on the road, and when it was sliding down the slope, it struck the claimant causing the injury. On this finding, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the jeep was then not being driven on account of which the accident cannot be said to arise out of the use of a motor vehicle and, therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. For this reason, the entire claim has been dismissed as not maintainable. As earlier stated, the Tribunal has assessed the quantum of compensation at Rs. 5,000 only in case the claimant is held entitled to award of compensation in these proceedings.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. He argues that even on the findings reached by the Tribunal, the accident arose out of the use of the vehicle so that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claim. It is also contended that Rs. 5,000 is inadequate compensation for the injury sustained by the claimant.

( 6 ) WE shall first advert to the question of quantum of compensation before coming to the maintainability of the claim and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, which is the main controversy in the present case. On the quantum of compensation, all that we know is that the claimant sustained fracture of the right ankle for which he had to be treated in a hospital. There is no cogent evidence to support the claim for special damages made by the claimant. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the claimant has suffered a permanent disability as a result of the injury and has started limping. There is no cogent evidence to support this contention. However, it is not difficult to visualise that some money must have been spent on treatment of the fracture sustained in the right ankle by the claimant. In the light of comparable cases relied on by the Tribunal, in our opinion the award of a lump sum compensation of Rs.