Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant State against the award dated 23/9/1997 passed by the MACT, Prabatsar deciding claim case No.129/90. 2. On 21/4/1990 at 3.40 pm when the deceased Dr. K.C. Jain was going by the jeep (Maruti Gypsy) belonging to Director, Family Welfare Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur on Govt. duty from Parbatsar to Chittorgarh, the said Maruti Gypsy, which was being driven by respondent No.1 Sajjan Singh met with an accident. On account of said accident, Dr. K.C. Jain suffered injuries and died on the same day at 5.45 pm in Govt. hospital. The claim petition was filed by his widow and children claiming compensation of Rs. 28,12000/-. Deciding the various issues in favour of the claimants, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8 lacs as compensation in favour of claimants for the said death of Dr.K.C.Jain, who was 45 years of age at the time of accident and working as Junior orthopedic Doctor in Govt. hospital. No cross objections have been filed nor the claimants appear to have filed any cross appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The appellant State has preferred this appeal on the ground that the said death has not resulted on account of rash and negligent driving of said Gypsy by respondent No.1 Sajjan Lal but on account of mechanical failure of said vehicle as the steering quarterpin suddenly came out and steering became free and said Dr.K.C.Jain jumped out of the said vehicle and he died on account of injuries suffered by him due to said fall and, therefore, the appellant State is not liable to pay compensation in question. By the interim order dated 8/9/2005 passed after hearing both the parties, this Court directed that the appellant State may deposit a sum of Rs.5 lacs as against the award of Rs. 8 lacs, which appears to have been deposited with some delay and the said delay came to be condoned by this Court on 6/12/2007. 3. Perusal of the impugned award clearly indicates that the death in question has been caused out of the use of motor vehicle in question. Even assuming for argument sake that it resulted on account of mechanical failure as stated in memo of appeal, even then it will not take out the case out of the ambit and scope of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. Even assuming for argument sake that it resulted on account of mechanical failure as stated in memo of appeal, even then it will not take out the case out of the ambit and scope of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. The fact remains that deceased Dr. K.C. Jain was travelling in the Govt. Vehicle and was on Govt. duty from Parbatsar to Chittorgarh and not only he but another person namely Hari Narayan also suffered injuries for which another claim petition No.131/90 was decided by the same award by the learned Tribunal and compensation for his injuries to the extent of Rs.10,000/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal. 5. The other relevant record like FIR, statement of claimants and other witnesses clearly establish that the said Dr.K.C.Jain was travelling in the Govt. Vehicle, which turned turtle on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 Sajjan Lal and said Dr. K.C. Jain died at a young age of 45 years. 6. Having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of the impugned award, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award and set aside the same at the instance of appellant State in any manner. Since there are no cross objections or cross appeal, this Court does not make any enhancement in compensation in favour of the claimants. 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.