JUDGMENT Lokeshar Singh Panta, J.:- The above appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the Company) against the award dated 15.3.1993 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (3), Kangra at Dharamsala in MAC Petition No. 44 of 1991 where under a sum of Rs.2,22,600/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the respondents No. 1 to 5 - Claimants along with costs and interest on account of motor vehicle accident in which one Prakash died. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:- On 16.7.1991, Prakash was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No. HP-38-3575 which was owned by Ramesh Chand respondent No. 8 and being driven by Madan Lal respondent No. 6 and Pritam Chand respondent No. 7 was the conductor of the bus. The bus was insured with the appellant-Company. At about 2 PM when the bus reached at the Bus Stand, Guler, the passengers started getting down from the bus. One of the passengers, namely, Balak Ram climbed on the roof of the bus to un- load his luggage. When Prakash Chand get down from the bus from rear door, the luggage thrown by Balak Ram fell on the head of Prakash Chand which resulted serious injuries to Prakash Chand. The bus was stopped at the Bus Stand and both the driver and conductor left the bus un-attended. Praksh Chand ultimately died due to injuries sustained by him on his head. 3. The legal representatives/heirs of Prakash Chand, who are his widow Smt. Kamla Devi respondent No. 1, Ms. Anju Devi, Ms. Anu Devi (Minor daughters-respondents 2 and 3), Ravi Kumar and Raman (minor sons- respondents 4 and 5) herein filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, alleging inter alia, that the accident took place due to rash and negligent act of the respondents-driver and conductor of the bus which arose out of the use of the motor vehicle. They averred that Prakash Chand before his death was doing the work of Halwai at Chandigarh and was earning Rs.3000/- per month. Due to the death of their bread winner, the claimants were left destitudes and on the premise of these averments, a claim of Rs.3,60,000/-as compensation was made by the respondent-claimants against the owner, driver, conductor and the Assurance Company. 4. Due to the death of their bread winner, the claimants were left destitudes and on the premise of these averments, a claim of Rs.3,60,000/-as compensation was made by the respondent-claimants against the owner, driver, conductor and the Assurance Company. 4. The respondents owner, driver and conductor of the bus in question filed a joint written statement in which it was admitted that Prakash Chand was travelling in a bus No. HP-38-3575 on the relevant day and when the bus was stopped at the bus stand, one Balak Ram who was also passenger of the bus, climbed on the roof of the bus to un-load his luggage and some luggage fell down from his hands which fell on the head of Prakash Chand and thereby he sustained injuries and lateron died due to the negligence of Balak Ram. They contended that there was no fault on the part of the driver and conductor of the bus and a criminal case was also lodged against Balak Ram. They sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The Assurance Company raised preliminary objections that the claim petition was not maintainable before the Tribunal and at the best it was the case covered under general law of torts which can be decided by the Civil Court of Competent jurisdiction; that no negligence could be attributed to the owner, driver and conductor of the bus in the given facts and circumstances; the claim of the respondents-claimants was not covered under the Insurance Policy; the liability of the Assurance Company, if any) is limited to the extent of Rs.15,000/- and that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time. On merit, the plea of the Assurance Company was that the respondents-claimants were required to prove how the accident took place and it would rely on the reply of owner, driver and conductor of the bus so far the factum of accident was concenred. It was also contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no negligence on the part of the owner, driver arid conductor of the bus. 6 On the controversial pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal below framed as many as seven following issues:- 1. Whether Prakash Chand had died in the accident dated 16.7.1991, due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HP-38-3575 by respondent Nos. 6 On the controversial pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal below framed as many as seven following issues:- 1. Whether Prakash Chand had died in the accident dated 16.7.1991, due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HP-38-3575 by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as alleged ? OPP. 2. In case issue No. 1 is decided in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OP Parties. 3. Whether the present petition, is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR-4. 4. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence, at the material time, if so its effective? OPR-4 5. Whether the petition, is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as" alleged? OPR-4 6. Whether respondent No. 4 is not liable to pay any compensation, as alleged? OPR-4. 7. Award. 7. The parties went to trial and led their oral and documentary evidence. After considering the entire evidence on record the Tribunal below returned the finding under Issue No. 1 holding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent- driver and conductor in which Prakash Chand died. Issue No. 2 was discussed. Against Issues No. 3 to 6 the findings were recorded in negative holding that the petition under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was maintainable, the driver of the bus was having valid licence at the material time, that the claim petition was maintainable without impleading Balak Ram as party. Consequently, after recording the findings against Issues No. 2 and 6, the Tribunal held that the respondents-claimants were held entitled to compensation holding the owner, driver, conductor and Assurance Company jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs2,22,600/- along with costs of Rs.300/- and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition if the amount so awarded was not deposited with the Tribunal within 30 days of the award. 8. In this appeal filed by-the appellant-Company Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel vehemently contended that the view taken by the Tribunal is wrong. 8. In this appeal filed by-the appellant-Company Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel vehemently contended that the view taken by the Tribunal is wrong. He contended that on the basis of the evidence on record, it has been established that the bus was stopped by the driver arid conductor at the bus stand and they went to nearby shop for taking a cup of tea and in the meanwhile one passenger Balak Ram went to roof top of the bus who was carrying in sheets on the roof of the bus and started unloading them, when one sheet slipped from his hands and fell down on the head of Prakash Chand and therefore, it was the negligence of Balak Ram and not that of the driver and conductor of the bus or the owner and in such circumstances, the liability of the Assurance Company to pay the amount of compensation is not sustainable. He next contended that tile accident cannot be termed arising out of the use of the vehicle and thus the award of the Tribunal below has to be set-aside. 9. Per contra, Mr. Prem Goel learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants contended that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the entire evidence on record and it was the negligence of the driver and conductor who left the bus un-attended and in their absence one passenger climbed on the roof of the bus and started unloading his luggage who threw the luggage on the head of Prakash Chand who was also a passenger in the bus when he alighted from the bus. 10. Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria vice counsel for respondents-owner, driver and conductor of the bus contended that the liability to pay the amount of compensation has been rightly fastened by the Tribunal upon the appellant-Company as the bus in questions was insured with it when the alleged accident took place. 11. 10. Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria vice counsel for respondents-owner, driver and conductor of the bus contended that the liability to pay the amount of compensation has been rightly fastened by the Tribunal upon the appellant-Company as the bus in questions was insured with it when the alleged accident took place. 11. To appreciate the contentions raised by the learned Counsel on both sides, it would be profitable to quote the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which are applicable in the present case :- "Section 165(1) - A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) 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 of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of vehicles or damages to any property of a third party so arising or both." "Section-166 deals with the application for compensation - (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made - (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased as the case may be." 12. So, it is evident that in order to attract the provisions contained in Sections 165 and 166, claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to, persons should arise out of the use of Motor Vehicle. The question is whether Prakash Chand had died in an accident ‘arising out of the use of motor vehicle or not. The question is whether Prakash Chand had died in an accident ‘arising out of the use of motor vehicle or not. In the light of the proved facts in this case, the contention is that Prakash Chand died because he was hit by an iron sheet which slipped from the hands of Balak Ram from the rooftop of the bus and, therefore, the accident cannot be said to have arisen out of the use of the motor vehicle and therefore the appellant- Company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. We shall now examine the correctness of the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant-Company. 13. It is well known cannon of interpretation that in interpreting a social welfare legislation, the court will normally adopt an interpretation which would favour persons sought to be benefited by the legislation. Where the courts are faced with a choice between a wider meaning which carries out what appears to have been the object of the .legislature more fully and a narrow meaning which carries it out less or not all they will often choose the former. The apex Court has consistently adopted beneficial construction in such situations and held that the expression "use" in Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Section 165 of the New Act) should be given a wide interpretation. 14. The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the scope of the expression use of motor vehicle and arising out of the use of vehicle in Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More, AIR 1991 SC 1769. In hat case, the inter-pretation of Section 92A of the Motor Vehicels Act, 1939 came up for consideration. There was a collision between a petrol tanker and a truck, as a result of which, the petrol tanker went off the road and fell on its left side at a distance of about 20 feet from the Highway. The petrol contained in it leaked out and got collected nearby. An explosition took place in the said petrol tanker resulting in fire. A number of persons who had assembled near the petrol tanker sustained burn injuries and a few of them succumbed to the said injures. The respondent before the Supreme Court in that case was the mother of one of those died, as a result of such injuries. An explosition took place in the said petrol tanker resulting in fire. A number of persons who had assembled near the petrol tanker sustained burn injuries and a few of them succumbed to the said injures. The respondent before the Supreme Court in that case was the mother of one of those died, as a result of such injuries. She filed a claim petition under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicels Act, 1939. She also made a claim for compensation under Section 92A. Petitioner before the Supreme Court raised an objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal to entertain such petitions on the ground that explosition and fire resulting in injuries to the deceased could not be said to be an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. The claims Tribunal upheld their contention holding that the explosition and fire took place about 4 hours after the incident and has no connection whatsoever with the accident. On appeal to the High Court, a learned, Single Judge held that the fact that at the material time the tanker was being driven on the Highway but was lying turtle on its side would make no difference and that vehicle lying on the side of the Highway would be covered by the expression use in Section 92A of the Act and that compensation would be payable under no fault liability of section 92A. Petitioners filed Letters Patent Appeal, but that was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court confirming the findings of the learned Single Judge. These findings were challenge before the Supreme Court The Supreme Court rejected the contentions and observed as follows (AIR 1991 SC 1769, para 15) :- "At the time when the petrol tanker collided with the truck on the national highway, it was being used for the purpose of transporting petrol. It cannot, therefore, be disputed that when the said collision took place, it was a motor vehicle as the said expression was defined in Section 2(18 of the Act. Did it cease to be motor vehicle after the collision with the truck on account of its lying turtle on its side at some distance from the road as a result of the said collision? Did it cease to be motor vehicle after the collision with the truck on account of its lying turtle on its side at some distance from the road as a result of the said collision? In our view, this question must be answered in the negative." The Supreme Court then proceeded to consider the further question whether the explosion and fire which caused injuries to the deceased son of the respondent can be said to have taken place due to an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle viz. the petrol tanker an observed as follows (para 3 of AIR) :- "......as compared to the expression caused by, the expression arising out of has a wider connotation. The expression caused by was used in Section 95(l)(b)(i) and (ii) and 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. In Section 92A, Parliament, however,-chose to use the expression arising out of which indicates that for the purpose of awarding compensation under Section 92A, the casual relationship between the use of the motor vehicle and the accident resulting in death of 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 92A enlarges the field of protection made available to the victims of an accident and is in consonance with the beneficial object underlying the enactment." The Supreme Court ultimately held that the explosition and fire resulting in the injuries which led to the death was due to an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. 15. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in 1998(6) Supreme Court Cases 605, Samir Chanda v. Managing Director, Assam State Transport Corporation, their Lordships held that the word ‘use in the context of motor vehicles, has to be construed in a wider sense to include the period when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary, being either parked on the road and when it is not in position to move due to some breakdown or mechanical defect. In that case, the appellant was a passenger in a bus belonging to respondent-Corporation and on 17.10.1983, when the bus reached the last stoppage and when the passengers were alighting from the bus, a bomb exploded inside the bus as a result of which the appellant sustained serious injuries on his legs. The other passengers also suffered serious injuries due to the bomb explosion. The Claims Tribunal entertained the claim petition of the appellant and awarded him compensation by an order dated 2.2.1993. On appeal, the High Court did not disturb the findings of the Tribunal on facts. However, it was of the view that there was no negligence on the part of the owner or the driver of the vehicle and, therefore, the question of paying compensation did not arise. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the award of the Tribunal. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court had preferred the appeal before the apex Court. Their Lordships while following the earlier decision of the apex Court in Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, AIR 1991 SC 1769 :1991 (3) SCC 530, and the same view was followed in the later decision of the apex Court in Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1997(8) SCC 683, held that there cannot be any doubt that the accident arose out of the use of the motor vehicle justifying the claim of the appellant and the assessment of the Tribunal in quantifying the compensation. The appeal was allowed and the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the award of the Tribunal was restored. 16. Relying upon the ratio of the decisions of the apex Court referred hereinabove in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the accident arose out of the use of motor vehicle when the bus in question was stationary and passenger Balak Ram was un-loading his iron sheets from rooftop of the bus and one iron sheet accidently fell from his hand which hit the another passenger Prakash Chand when he was alighting from the bus. The act of actually placing the load on the part of the vehicle designed to bear it through transport and for the purpose of its transportation must in our opinion be use of motor .vehicle in the sense relevant to the Act and relevant use of the vehicle cannot be confined to the period it is in motion or its part moving in some operation. The insured vehicle was being used during the operation of placing the iron sheets on its rooftop in order to carry them, the positioning of iron sheets upon the motor vehicle was a stop in that operation and unloading of them is indispensable step in that operation. Therefore, we hold that the accident had occurred due to use of the motor vehicle resulting the death of Prakash Chand. We do not subscribe the reasoning given by the Tribunal that the driver and conductor of the bus allowed an unauthorised person to unload his luggage, therefore, they were negligent and responsible for the cause of death of Prakash Chand. Balak Ram was not an unauthorised person but admittedly a passenger travelling in the bus along with his goods i.e. iron sheets. The fact that the iron sheets were loaded on the rooftop of the bus with the permission of the driver and conductor and the bus was in die use when the passengers and goods were carried the accident arose out of the use of the vehicle. Therefore, we do not accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant-Assurance Company that the accident did not arise out of the use of the vehicle. The contention that Balak Ram was not joined as party in the claim petition who was liable to pay the compensation because of his negligence Prakash Chand had died, is also unsustainable. Claims referred to in Section 110 (see Section 165 of the New Act) are applicable only to cases of claims against the owner or the driver of the motor vehicle or the insurer as the case may be and not against stranger. The proper forum for adjudicating the claim against the stranger is a civil court. Therefore, Balak Ram was rightly not impleaded as party in the claim petition by the Claims Tribunal being a stranger to the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. The proper forum for adjudicating the claim against the stranger is a civil court. Therefore, Balak Ram was rightly not impleaded as party in the claim petition by the Claims Tribunal being a stranger to the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. Moreover, this plea is also not open to be taken as a defence by the appellant- Assurance Company under the New Act which is applicable in this case. Mr. Prem Goel learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants has placed reliance on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in 1991(2) Sim.L.C. 428, H.R.T.C. & Ors. v. Om Prakash, contending that the liability to pay the amount of compensation to the respondents- claimants has been rightly fastened by the Tribunal on the appellant- Company in such circumstances. In that case, the accident had occurred due to bomb blast causing injuries to some of the passengers and proving fatal to others travelling in the bus and the learned Singe Judge held that the HRTC owner of the ill-fated bus was liable to pay the amount of compensation to the victims and legal heirs of the deceased on the ground that the accident took place arising out of the use of motor vehicle. In that decision, the learned Single Judge has relied upon some decisions of High Courts and the manner of the word use given in the Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (Vol. II). 17. For the above stated reasons, we hold that the owner, driver and Assurance Company are jointly and seriously liable to pay the amount of compensation to the respondents-claimants. Tie vehicle was insured with the appellant-Company, therefore, the Assurance "Company will indemnify the insured for payment of the amount of compensation to the respondents-claimants determined by the Tribunal below together with interest and the amount shall be proportionately shared by the respondents-claimants as per the directions of the Tribunal. 18. Consequently, the appeal fails and shall stand dismissed. The award of the Tribunal below ismaintained. Cross-objection of the claimants filed in this appeal are also dismissed not maintainable. Costs on parties. Petition dismissed.