( 1. ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the dismissal of the claim application under section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988, vide the award dated 21. 6. 2001 passed by the Member of Additional M. A. C. T. , Khurai in Motor accident Claim Case No. 26 of 1999.

( 2. ) CASE of the claimant-appellant is that she was hit by a black colour Yamaha motor cycle on 12. 12. 1998 from behind which was being driven by the respondent in a rash and negligent manner. It was her specific case that the registration number was not mentioned on the motor cycle at the time of accident and thereafter motor cycle was not seen with the respondent. F. I. R. was lodged on the same date, however, without making mention therein of the registration number of the offending motor cycle. The claimant could not trace out the particulars of the motor cycle, accordingly, the same were not mentioned in the claim petition which was submitted for compensation with regard to the injuries received by her in the accident.

( 3. ) RESPONDENT denied the allegations contained in the claim petition.

( 4. ) THE learned Claims Tribunal after recording evidence dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimantappellant has failed to provide particulars of the offending motor cycle, e. g. , its registration number, chassis and engine number. The learned Claims Tribunal was of the opinion that the claim could have been established under the provisions of law of Torts only and not under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly vide impugned award the claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred.

( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the claimantappellant contended that a claim petition may be entertained on merits despite not providing registration number of the offending vehicle. Fact of accident with the motor cycle could be established by independent evidence. The moment it is found that the accident has occurred out of the use of motor vehicle, the claimant ought to have been held entitled to compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles act.

( 6. ) CONSIDERED the submissions and perused the record.

( 7. ) SECTION 166 of the Motor Vehicles act enables a person to submit application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1)of section 165 of the said Act. Sub-section (1) of section 165 empowers the Claims Tribunal to adjudicate upon the claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles. The word accident is not defined in the Motor Vehicles Act or rules made thereunder. The Apex Court in the case of Shivaji dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, 1991 ACJ 777 (SC), has observed:

" (36) This would show that as compared to the expression caused by, the expression arising out of has a wider connotation. The expression caused by was used in sections 95 (1) (b) (i) and (ii) and 96 (2) (b) (ii) of the Act. In section 92-A, Parliament, however, chose to use the expression arising out of which indicates that for the purpose of awarding compensation under section 92-A, the causal relationship between the use of the motor vehicle and the accident resulting in death or permanent disablement is not required to be direct and proximate and it can be less immediate. This would imply that accident should be connected with the use of the motor vehicle but the said connection need not be direct and immediate. This construction of the expression arising out of the use of a motor vehicle in section 92-A enlarges the field of protection made available to the victims of an accident and is in consonance with the beneficial object underlying the enactment. "

( 8. ) IT may further be seen that motor vehicle is defined in clause (28) of section 2 as mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and