SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) * * * * ( 2 ) MR. Nagarkar appearing for Mr. Shelat for the respondent Corporation has frankly brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Supreme court in Shivaji Devanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, 1991 0 ACJ 777 in which the decision in General Manager, Karnataka S. R. T. C. v. S. Satalingappa, 1979 0 ACJ 452 has been also considered by the Supreme court and, after considering several other judgments of different High Courts and of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has held that the word use in the expression use of a motor vehicle has a wider connotation and covers accidents which occur both when the vehicle is in motion and when it is stationary. It is further held that use of a vehicle does not cease when it has been rendered immobile on account of breakdown or mechanical defect or accident. In the case on hand before me, though the tyre was punctured, admittedly some passengers were sitting in the bus and when the driver started engine with a view to supply water to the radiator, the bus started getting movement and because of that the conductor, who was holding the spare wheel on the carrier of the bus lost the balance and consequently the grip of the spare wheel which slipped from his hands and went rolling about 20 ft. distance and fell on the claimants leg who was sitting under a tree and crushed it. Thus, there is no doubt whatsoever that the claimant received injuries in the vehicular accident which took place because of the negligence not only of the driver of the bus but also of the conductor. If the driver of the bus had not started the engine, then the bus would not have made any motion and he would not have been required to apply brakes for stopping it. It was only because the driver applied the brakes that the conductor who was on the carrier of the bus with the spare wheel holding in his hands, who lost his balance and ultimately the grip over the spare wheel which rolled down to the place where the appellant-claimant was sitting under a tree. It was only because the driver applied the brakes that the conductor who was on the carrier of the bus with the spare wheel holding in his hands, who lost his balance and ultimately the grip over the spare wheel which rolled down to the place where the appellant-claimant was sitting under a tree. Therefore, this was only due to negligent act on the part of both the driver and the conductor of the bus that the accident took place resulting in vicarious liability of the opponent No. 3-Corporation. Therefore, this being a vehicular accident, all the three respondents are held jointly and severally responsible for the same. ( 3 ) INITIALLY the appellant-claimant claimed Rs. 1,35,000 which was subsequently restricted to Rs. 24,999 before the Tribunal and this appeal is also only for Rs. 24,999. 00. The fact that one leg of the appellant-lady had to be amputated itself is sufficient to award the compensation as claimed by her. It is accordingly awarded. ( 4 ) IN the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The claim petition of the claimant is allowed. The appellant-claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 24,999. 00 (Rupees twenty-four thousand nine hundred ninety-nine only) from the opponent-respondents who are jointly and severally held liable to pay the said amount of compensation together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application till realisation on costs. Respondent No. 3-Corporation shall deposit the awarded amount with interest and costs with the Tribunal within eight weeks from today. On depositing the said amount, the Tribunal shall pay the said amount by a/c payee cheque to the appellant-claimant Rabari Bharmabai Kana and shall also see to it that the said amount reaches in the hands of the appellant-claimant. The Tribunal shall thereafter report the said fact to this Court. Award to be drawn accordingly.