The judgment established the interpretation of 'use of motor vehicle' under the Motor Vehicles Act and affirmed the jurisdiction of the lower Tribunal to entertain the claim petition.

( 1 ) THE appellant Insurance Company has filed this appeal aggrieved by the Award dated 23-7-81, passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 136 of 1979.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had filed a claim petition under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for awarding compensation amounting to Rs. 30,000/ -. The case of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, in brief, before the lower Tribunal was that on 30-3-1979, tanker No. MPG 7685 of the ownership of respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 being its driver was parked on the road in front of the workshop of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 and some welding work was being carried on the aforesaid tanker. At that time the deceased with one Ramlal was going towards Naulakha at about 3 p. m. When they were near the tanker the diesel tank exploded and on account of which the deceased received serious burn injuries. The deceased was treated at the M. Y. Hospital, Indore, but he succumbed to the injuries on 4-4-1979. The claimants claimed Rs. 30,000/- on the averments that the deceased was 54 years of age at the time of his death and was getting a salary of Rs. 630/- per month as a jobber and due to his death the petitioners have suffered the pecuniary loss and have also suffered mentally. The claim was made against the Insurance Company also in view of the fact that the aforesaid tanker was insured with the appellant Insurance Company.

( 3 ) THE claim of the petitioners was resisted by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of non-applicant No. 2 and the tanker was not in use at the time of the accident and it being parked inside the workshop the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The other respondents Nos. 5 and 6 also resisted the claim on the same grounds. The Insurance Company, further contended that the risk was not covered by the policy of Insurance.

( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal framed seven issues to decide the claim and it held that the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased Radhakishan and are entitled to get the compensation. It was also held that the accident tanker was being repaired in contravention of the road rules and there was negligence on the part of the driver and the mechanic which resulted in the said accident and the deceased died due to the injuries received due to the accident. It was also held that the accident is covered by the terms of the policy and the Court has jurisdiction to hear the claim petition. Accordingly an award of Rs. 20,000/- was passed against the respondents Nos. 3 to 6 and the appellant. Hence this appeal by only the Insurance Company which was non-applicant No. 3 before the lower Tribunal. The other non-applicants have not filed any appeal.

( 5 ) THE grievance of the appellant is that the vehicle being stationary and not parked in a public place, the lower Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The Insurance Company covered the risk only when the vehicle was in motion and not when it is stationary and, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be called upon to satisfy award. It was further argued that the driver of the vehicle being in no. way negligent, the Insurance Company is not vicariously liable to pay the damages.

( 6 ) THE respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a cross-objection wherein they have prayed for the enhancement of the award amount.

( 7 ) AS regards the negligence, it is clear from the evidence that the tanker in question was parked partly in the garage and partly on the public road. It is also corroborated by the spot map Ex. C-2. It is also not disputed that the diesel tanker of the accident vehicle caught fire and burst as a result of the welding near the diesel tank. Now the negligence on the part of the vehicle driver is apparent in not emptying the diesel tank at the time of the repair and also in not ensuring the proper parking of th