JUDGMENT :- This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 29-11-2005, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Betul, in Motor Accidents Claim Case No.43/2005, dismissing thereby the Claim Petition for want of jurisdiction. 2. Facts relevant for the purposes of this appeal are that deceased Shahadat Khan was a driver on truck No. MP-05-A/9611 owned by the respondent No.1. Truck was on the return journey from Nasik to Betul on, 23-9-2004 with one Sunil Korku as its clear. The truck was parked at one Dhaba near village Patola. Maharashtra in the intervening night between 22/23-9-2004. Shilhadat Khan was assaulted by Sunil Korku by knife. Shahadat Khan was found dead. Claimant/appellant submitted a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation the ground that Shahadat Khan was murdered by the cleaner while sleeping in the truck. A claim for compensation was, accordingly made. Respondents submitted their respective reply they inter-alia stated that the claim case is not tenable under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal. 3. Preliminary issues were raised about maintainability of the Claim Petition under Section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Betul, after hearing the arguments passed the impugned order on 29-11-2005, holding thereby that the death of Shah ad at Khan was not caused due to accidental murder but was simplicitor murder and. the Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction, to entertain the Claim Petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, the Claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by it, the present appeal has been preferred. 4. Shri Vijay Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant placing reliance on the apex Court decision in the case of ,) Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., ((2000) 50 SCC 113) : ( AIR 2000 SC 1930 ) and Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Khairunisha and others• v. Subhash alias Punjabi and others, 2008 (2) MPHT 259 ), contended that the death of Shahadat Khan was caused due to the accidental murder arising from the use of the motor vehicle, therefore, the Claim Petition ought to have been decided on merits by the Claims Tribunal. 5. 5. Shri N. K. Jain and Shri Satish Chaurasiya, learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted on the other hand that the death was resulted due to the dispute between Shahadat Khan and Sunil Korku which was independent of the use of the motor vehicle. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 6. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1.988 may be submitted for compensation if the accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 occurs. Sub-section (1) of Section 165 employers a Claims Tribunals to decide the claim for compensation in respect 'of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of use of motor vehicles. Thus', the key words are "accidents involving-the death of, or bodily injury to persons• arising out of use of motor vehicle." The word 'accident' has not been defined in the• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Rules made there under. Apex Court in the case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another v. Vatschala Uttam More, (1991) 3 SCC 530 "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 S. 92-A, Parliament, however, chose to use the expression "arising out of' which indicates that for the purpose of awarding compensation u/s. 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 S. 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." In Rita Devi's case ( AIR 2000 SC 1930 ) (supra), the apex Court has further observed :- "10. The question, therefore, is can a murder be an accident in any given case? The question, therefore, is can a murder be an accident in any given case? There is no doubt that 'murder', as it is understood, in the common parlance is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act normally have a motive against the victim for such killing. But there are also instances where murder can be by accident on a given set of facts. The difference between a 'murder' which is not an accident and a 'murder' which is an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. In our opinion, if the dominant intention of the Act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simplicitor, while if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder." 7. Learned Member of the Claims Tribunal has decided the preliminary issues without recording the evidence on the point that whether the murder of Shah ad at Khan could be treated as accidental murder or a simplicitor murder. He has considered certain documents containing translation of papers kept by the Police Department in relation to the said accident. Originally, the report is in Marathi language and I have got a privilege to read and understand the photocopy of original legible paper which is in Marathi language. In the later portion of the report dated 25-9-1994, it is mentioned that the truck in question came from Malegaon in the night on 22-9-1994 and was stopped at about 11.00 p.m. before hotel Khalsa. The rope tied around the goods was loosened due to travelling and there was exchange of hot talks for tying the rope between Shahadat Khan and Sunil Korku. In the morning, the driver was awakening the accused (Sunil Korku). He is stated to have given slaps. Getting annoyed, Sunil Korku assaulted the deceased by knife which resulted into murder. 8. Considering the aforesaid version, this cannot be necessarily said that the death of Shahadat Khan was a simplicitor murder. In the morning, the driver was awakening the accused (Sunil Korku). He is stated to have given slaps. Getting annoyed, Sunil Korku assaulted the deceased by knife which resulted into murder. 8. Considering the aforesaid version, this cannot be necessarily said that the death of Shahadat Khan was a simplicitor murder. It was to be examined by the Claims Tribunal that whether the death of Shahadat Khan was due to accidental murder or simplicitor murder and whether it was in relation to the previous night's quarrel which arose out of the use of motor vehicle. This could have been examined only after recording the evidence. Learned member of the Claims Tribunal ought to have provided opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in this respect. Without evidence, it could not have been determined whether the death of Shahadat Khan can be termed as accidental murder or simplicitor murder. This having not been done, the impugned order suffers from illegality. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, set aside. Matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal to decide it afresh after recording evidence. Issue about maintainability may be decided first or along with other issues in accordance with law, but only after recording evidence. Parties to appear before the Claims Tribunal. Betul on 2-2-2009. Record be sent back immediately with copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid directions, appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.