JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - A nil award passed by the learned 1st M.A.C.T., Mayurbhanj, Baripada in M.A.C.T. No. 101 of 1993 dated 20.4.2001 is assailed by the claimant Appellant in this appeal filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The scenario of facts reveals that on 26.9.1993 at about 4.30 P.M. Gulfa Dehury, who was a cowherd along with his wife and cattle was returning to his village walking on the left side of the road. At that juncture, the offending bus bearing Registration No. OR-11-1699 belong to Orissa State Road Transport Corporation came on the road and the Driver instead of stopping the vehicle, proceeded by blowing horn intermittently. By the sound of the horn, the cattle got disturbed and started running from one side to the other. Some of the cattle got disturbed and started running hither and thither. Some of the cattle became very restless and even started charging each other. Unfortunately, one of the bullocks pushed the deceased. Consequently, he came in front of the bus and the bus dashed him. He fell down, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. It was stated that he was only 45 years old at the time of his death and was earning Rs. 3,000/ - per month. 3. After receiving notice, the owner of the Corporation filed a written statement vaguely denying all the allegations and taking the stand that the road was fully covered by cattle and the bus was moving slowly blowing horn. There was no negligence on the part of the Driver. Due to negligence of the deceased, the accident occurred and as such the Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. filed a written statement taking the stand that the bus having not been insured with it, it owed to pay compensation. 4. On the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal framed three issues. To substantiate their case, the claimant (Gulfa Dehury) got two witnesses examined and exhibited three documents. On behalf of the Corporation, no oral evidence was adduced. After discussing the evidence The Tribunal observed that as the bus was moving slowly, it could not be said that the Driver was negligent. It further held that the death was caused not due to rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the bus. On behalf of the Corporation, no oral evidence was adduced. After discussing the evidence The Tribunal observed that as the bus was moving slowly, it could not be said that the Driver was negligent. It further held that the death was caused not due to rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the bus. Consequently, the Corporation-O.S.R.T.C. was not liable to pay any compensation and dismissed the claim petition. 5. Being aggrieved, the claimant, who is a young widow has approached this Court. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the finding that the Driver of the bus was not negligent was not correct. Relying upon the evidence of the witnesses, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that it appears that cattle were crossing the road, but then, the Driver without stopping the bus for a few minutes moved blowing horn intermittently. By the sound of the horn, the cattle became disturbed and started running hither and thither and one of the bullocks pushed the deceased, who came in front of the bus and the bus which was moving, dashed against him. Thus, it is stated, the accident occurred also due to the negligence of the Driver. 6. Learned Counsel, for the Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal was just and proper. It is stated that the evidence would show that the bus was moving slowly by blowing horn. Thus, no negligence whatsoever could be attributed to the Driver. 7. Fact remains, the offending bus was in fact involved in the accident. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the liability to pay compensation in certain cases under the provision of "no-fault liability". It stipulates that where the death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a Motor Vehicle, the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 140 which stipulates that for entitlement of any compensation under Sub-section (1) the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death of permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of any other person. Law is well settled that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not restricted to decide claim arising out of negligence in the use of Motor Vehicles. Negligence is only one of the premises of the cause of action for making a claim for compensation in respect of accident arising out of the use of Motor Vehicles. There are also other premises for such cause of action. In the case of Smt. Kaushnuma Begum and Others Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others. The Supreme Court held that where the deceased pedestrian was knocked down by a jeep, even though the Driver was not negligent in causing the accident claim for compensation was sustainable. It is no more res-integra that "no fault liability" envisaged in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is distinguishing from the rule of strict liability. In the former case, the compensation amount is fixed and is payable even if any one of the exceptions to the rule can be applied. Compensation on account of accident arising out of use of the Motor Vehicles can be claimed under the common law. In the case at hand, as it appears, due to blowing of horn intermittently by the Driver of the bus, the cattle became disturbed and started running hither and thither. One of the bullocks was so frightened that it started running and pushed the deceased, who in turn came in front of the bus and the bus which was running dashed against him. Consequently, he sustained grievous injuries and died. Thus, it cannot be said that the Driver of the bus was not negligent at all. Even otherwise, the Appellant-Insurance Company has not examined any witness to prove that the Driver of the bus was not negligent. Neither the Driver nor has any of the staff of the bus been examined as a witness. Taking all these aspects and the further fact that a young widow lost her earning husband in prime youth into consideration, this Court feels that it is a fit case where the principle of "no fault liability" had to be applied to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the Respondent-O.S.R.T.C. is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - in lump sum to the Appellant-widow towards compensation. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the Respondent-O.S.R.T.C. is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - in lump sum to the Appellant-widow towards compensation. The said amount shall be paid within a period of three months, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till disbursement. Final Result : Allowed