JUDGMENT (B. Chandra Kumar, J.) Since these two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the same accident and involve almost similar facts and legal issues, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellants in C.M.A.No.4845 of 2004 are the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.725 of 2001. They filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Vizianagaram ('the Tribunal', for brevity) under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act', for brevity) claiming a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of death of one Shaik Ismail, who was working as driver in Police Department and who died in a motor accident. The appellants in C.M.A.No.4844 of 2004 are the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.818 of 2001. They claimed a total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of one Bhupathi Sriramulu, who was working as police constable and who died in a motor accident. Both the M.V.O.Ps were clubbed together and disposed of by common order dated 27.10.2004 by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and it was due to the landmine blast and, therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation claimed by them. The Tribunal, however, awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimants in each M.V.O.P. separately. Aggrieved by the same, present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The deceased in M.V.O.P.No.725 of 2001 Shaik Ismail was working as driver in Police Department, Vizianagaram. He was aged about 55 years by the date of the accident. The deceased in M.V.O.P.No.818 of 2001 Bhupathi Sriramulu was aged about 35 years and he was working as police constable by the date of the accident. On 02.02.2001, the police party, headed by the Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram, were proceeding to Elwinpeta for combing operation, and after conducting combing operation near Kolliguda Village, they were returning to Vizianagaram by a bus bearing registration No. AP 9 P 1163. The deceased Shaik Ismail was driving the said bus. The other deceased - Bhupathi Sriramulu was one of the constables who were travelling in the said bus at the time of the landmine blast. The deceased Shaik Ismail was driving the said bus. The other deceased - Bhupathi Sriramulu was one of the constables who were travelling in the said bus at the time of the landmine blast. It appears that Superintendent of Police and some other police personnel were in front of the said bus in a police jeep and some others were behind the bus. When the bus reached Kolliguda Junction near Kothavasala, there was a sudden landmine blast, which was a pre-planned one by antisocial elements. Both the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Admittedly, the accident occurred only due to the landmine blast by the antisocial elements. The Station House Officer, Elwinpet Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2001 under Sections 147, 148, 307, 320 read with 149 IPC. 4. The specific case of the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.725 of 2001 is that the first claimant is the wife, second claimant is the daughter and claimants 3 and 4 are the sons of deceased Shaik Ismail. As mentioned supra, the deceased Shaik Ismail was working as driver in Police Department and was earning Rs.7,500/- per month. It is further case of the claimants that due to sudden and untimely death and of the deceased, they became destitute and thus claimed a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- before the Tribunal. 5. The specific case of the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.818 of 2001 is that the first claimant is the wife, claimants 2 and 3 are the minor sons, 4th claimant is mother and 5th claimant is father of the deceased Bhupati Sriramulu. Their further case is that the deceased was working as Police Constable and earning RS.6,000/- per month and that due to sudden demise of the deceased, they have lost the source of their livelihood. They claimed a total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- before the Tribunal for the death of the deceased Bhupati Sriramulu. It is also their case that the deceased Bhupati Sriramulu was aged about 37 years and earning Rs.6,000/- per month on the date of the accident. 6. The first respondent is' the Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram, second respondent is the Police Transport Organization represented by the Inspector general of Police, Hyderabad, and the third respondent is the State of A.P. represented by the District Collector, Vizianagaram. 6. The first respondent is' the Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram, second respondent is the Police Transport Organization represented by the Inspector general of Police, Hyderabad, and the third respondent is the State of A.P. represented by the District Collector, Vizianagaram. Respondents 1 and 3 filed common counter and the second respondent adopted the counter filed by the first respondent. 7. The sum and substance of the counter filed by the respondents is that the accident occurred due to the land mine blast by unknown extremists and that the driver of the bus was not negligent in driving the bus and that the claimants in both the claim petitions have been paid compensation and exgratia and they would be provided rent free quarters till the date of retirement of the deceased in each case, as the case may be. It was also contended that the claimants in each case were also provided with a house site and that the Government was making arrangements for providing employment to one of the legal heirs of each of the deceased. Their further case is that the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimants in both the M.V.O.Ps. 8. The claimants in M.V.O.P.No.725 of 2001 were paid an amount of Rs.2,62,083/-, which are classified under various heads shown below. 1. Group Insurance Scheme Rs.16,160-00 2. Family Benefit Fund Rs.8,923-00 3. Leave Salary Rs.45,279-00 4. Welfare Fund Rs.1,300-00 5. Corpus Fund Rs.20,000-00 6. Bhadrata Scheme Rs.1, 19, 150-00 7. Obsequies Charges Rs.2,000-00 8. General Provident Fund Rs.13,484-00 9. Booster Scheme Rs.9,246-00 10. A.P.G.L.I. Rs.26,641-00 ------------------- Rs.2,62,083/ - ------------------- 9. The claimants in M.V.0.P.No.818 of 2001 were paid an amount of Rs.5,35,991/-, which are classified under various heads shown below: 1. Corpus Fund Rs.20,000-00 2. Welfare Fund Rs.1,300-00 3. Leave Salary Rs.15,429-00 4. G.I.S. Rs.16,160-00 5. New India Assurance, Vizianagaram Rs.2,00,000-00 6. Obsequies Charges Rs.2,000-00 7. Bhadratha Scheme Rs.1,19,050-00 8. G.P.F. amount Rs.21,231-00 9. Booster Scheme Rs.10,000/- 10. A.P.G.L.I. Rs.30,821-00 11. Group Personal Accident Insurance Rs.1,00,000-00 ------------------- Rs.5,35,991-00 ------------------- 10. It is also the case of the respondents that a lump sum exgratia of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid to the claimants in each case separately. 11. Common evidence was let in for both the M.V.O.Ps. The first petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.818 of 2001 was examined as P.W.1 and one Varri Ramakrishna was examined as P.W.2. The third claimant in M.V.0.P.No.725 of 2001 was examined as P.W.3. 11. Common evidence was let in for both the M.V.O.Ps. The first petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.818 of 2001 was examined as P.W.1 and one Varri Ramakrishna was examined as P.W.2. The third claimant in M.V.0.P.No.725 of 2001 was examined as P.W.3. Exs.Al toA7weremarked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1-Senior Assistant, District Police Office, Vizianagaram, was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.9 were marked. 12. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and on issue No.1 i.e. whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus though the bus was involved in the accident. On issue No.2, i.e. whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that claimants in both the M.V.O.Ps. have already been paid exgratia of Rs.5,00,000/- and other benefits for the death of each of the deceased and as such, claimants in both the M.V.O.Ps. are not entitled for compensation. However, the Tribunal opined that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to award a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimants separately in each M.V.O.P., which include loss of dependency, loss of estate, consortium to the first petitioner and transport and funeral expenses. 13. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, admittedly, the bus was involved in the accident and that the claimants are entitled for compensation irrespective of proof of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus and in the above circumstances, the Tribunal erred in granting a meagre compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimants in both the M. V .O.Ps. To substantiate his submissions, learned counsel also relied upon New India Assurance Company Limited rep by its Deputy Manager, Secunderabad v. BLalitha Smt. and others (1) 2010 (1) ALT 441 , National Insurance Co., v. Shiv Dutt Sharma (2) III (2003) CPJ 667, State of AP., v. K. Pushpalatha (3) 2006 ALT (5) 789 = 2006 ALD 5 614 = 2006 (TLS) 433837 and Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others v. Om Prakash and others (4) 1992 ACJ 40 (H.P.). 14. 14. The main submission of learned Government Pleader representing respondents is that, admittedly there is no allegation of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus; that once the claimants have failed to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation under the provisions of the Act and in view of the same, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the claimants have already been paid exgratia and other amounts and even employment has been provided to one of the legal heirs of the deceased in each case and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal is perfectly justified. 15. We have considered the aforesaid contentions. The points that arise for consideration in both these appeals are (1) whether the accident occurred out of the use of the motor vehicle within the meaning of Section 165 and 166 of the Act; (2) Whether the respondents had not taken proper care and precaution and were negligent in using the vehicle; (3) Whether a petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act can be treated as a petition filed under Section 166 of the Act; (4) whether the amounts paid to the claimants towards exgratia etc., and other facilities provided by the Government to the legal heirs of the deceased Government employees have to be taken into consideration for determination of compensation; (5) What is the just and reasonable compensation in each case; and (6) to what relief. Issue No.3: 16. It is not in dispute that claimants in M.V.O.P.No.725 of 2001 filed claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Act and the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.818 of 2001 have filed claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that when the claimants have claimed compensation under no fault liability under Section 140 of the Act or under Section 163-A of the Act, they are not required to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus or negligent use of the vehicle by the respondents. Section 166 of the Act reads as follows. Section 166 of the Act reads as follows. "166.Application for compensation:(I) 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 authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be." Sub-section (4) of Section 166 reads as follows. "166(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act." 17. It is settled law that where the income of the deceased or the victim is more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, the claimants are not entitled to file petition under Section 163-A of the Act. This view was taken by the Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Company Limited, Baroda (5) 2004 ACJ 934 (sq = 2004 (5) ALT 11 (sq. In view of the same, the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable. However, in the above-referred decision itself, it was also held that a petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act can be treated as a petition filed under Section 166 of the Act. 18. The Tribunal, in the case on: hand, also seems to have considered both the petitions under Section 166 of the Act. 19. In a case between Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Baldev Kumar Nayyer (6) 2007 ACJ 678 (P&H), it was held that a petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable. However, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration under Section 166 of the Act. 20. In Sumiya Devi and others v. Sri Bir Marketing Services and others (7) 2008 (1) An.W.K 222 (Jhar.) = 2008 ACJ 2833, it was held that a petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act was treated as a petition filed under Section 166 of the Act. 21. In a case between Skandia Insurance Company Limited v. Kokilaben CI1andravadan (8) 1987 ACJ 411, the Apex Court observed as follows:- " . . . 21. In a case between Skandia Insurance Company Limited v. Kokilaben CI1andravadan (8) 1987 ACJ 411, the Apex Court observed as follows:- " . . . When the option is between opting for a view which will relieve the distress and misery of the victims of the accidents or their dependents on the one hand and equally plausible view which will reduce the profitability of the Insurer in regard to the occupational hazard undertaken by him by way of business activity, there is hardly any choice, the Court cannot list opt for the former view." 22. Thus it appears that when two views are possible, the view in favour of the victims, which will relieve their distress and misery, should be adopted. 23. In case between S. Nagaraj and others v. State of Karnataka and another (9) 1994 (1) LLJ 857 it was observed that:- "... The justice is a virtue, which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules or procedures nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. Even law bends before justice." 24. Thus it appears that it is the duty of the Courts to do justice to the parties and while doing justice, if the technicalities come in the way, much importance need not be given to these technicalities because, ultimately, justice has to be done to the parties. Moreover, when sub-section (4) of Section 166 of the Act envisages that the Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the Act as an application for compensation under the Act, there is nothing wrong in treating an application filed under Section 163-A of the Act as an application under Section 166 of the Act. In view of the above and considering the object of the Act, we are of the view that the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act can be treated as an application under Section 166 of the Act. 25. Once it is held that petitions have to be treated under Section 166 of the Act, necessarily, the petitioners have to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle or that the respondents were negligent in using the vehicle. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 26. 25. Once it is held that petitions have to be treated under Section 166 of the Act, necessarily, the petitioners have to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle or that the respondents were negligent in using the vehicle. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 26. Now, let us examine what is the meaning of the word "Accident" and how the words" Accident arising out of use of motor vehicle" have been dealt with. The word' Accident' means" an untoward mishap, which is not expected or desired". Admittedly, the bus in which both the deceased were travelling, met with an accident due to blast of a land mine by the extremists. 27. The phrase 'rash and negligent act' means, "doing an act, with the conciseness of risk that evil consequences will follow". Negligence, in other words, is breach of duty imposed by law. Therefore, when an act has been done without due care and caution or done with recklessness and indifference to consequences, such act has to be treated as 'rash and negligent act'. 28. The phrase 'rash and negligence' was discussed in S. N. Hussain v. State of Andlzra Pradesh (10) AIR 1972 SC 685 and the Apex Court opined as follows:- ..." Criminal negligence" is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. 29. The phrase 'rash act' came up for discussion in Mohammad Aynuddin alias Miyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh (11) 2000 (7) SCC 72 = AIR 2000 SC 2511 and it was opined as follows. ..."A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution." 30. In a case between Rathnashalvan v. State of Karnataka (12) 2007 (3) SCC 474 , it was defined as follows:- ..."Rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. In a case between Rathnashalvan v. State of Karnataka (12) 2007 (3) SCC 474 , it was defined as follows:- ..."Rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences." 31. In a case between State of Karnataka v. Muralidhar (13) 2009 ACJ 1526 it was observed as follows: "Negligence means omission to do something which reasonable and prudent means granted by the consideration which ordinarily regulate human affairs or doing something which prudent and a reasonable means guided by similar considerations would not do." Section 165 of the Act is as follows. Claims Tribunals:- (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereafter 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 use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Explanation:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression "claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles" includes claims for compensation under Section 140 [and Sections 163-A]. (2) A Claims Tribunal shall consist of such number of members as the State Government may think fit to appoint and where it consists of two or more members, one of them shall be appointed as the Chairman thereof. (3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member of Claims Tribunal unless he,- (a) is, or has been a Judge of a High court, or (b) is, or has been a District Judge, or (c) is qualified for appointment as a Judge High Court [or as a District Judge] (4) Where two or more Claims Tribunals are constituted for any area, the State Government, may by general or special order, regulate the distribution of business among them. 32. Now, let us examine the, words "accidents arising out of use of motor vehicle". 32. Now, let us examine the, words "accidents arising out of use of motor vehicle". A reading of Section 165 of the Act gives an impression that claims Tribunals are constituted under Section 165 of the Act for the purpose of adjudicating upon the claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving death or bodily injury to persons arising out the use of the motor vehicles or damages to property of a third party so arising or both. In a case between Motor and General Finance (India) Ltd., v. Mary Mony (14) 1991 ACJ 101 (Ker), it was held as follows: "Tribunal is given power to adjudicate claims for compensation arising out of the use of motor vehicles. Words "use of motor vehicles" in Section 110(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, cover all engagements of the motor vehicle; no restrictions as to the class of victims of the accident are imposed by the Legislature". 33. Let us examine few cases wherein, under different circumstances, the words "accidents arising out of use of the motor vehicle" have been intercepted. 34. In a case between V.G. Swnant v. Shailendra Kumar (15) AIR 1980 M.P 101 , it was observed as follows:"- ...A motorcycle, which was mechanically in order, was parked by the side of the road. It rolled down a slope through the intervention of some of the mischievous children. The question came up for consideration was whether it was an accident or not. It was held that it was an accident, which arose due to the use of the motorcycle. 35. In Swarnalata Dutta Barua and another v. M/s. National Transport India Pvt. Ltd. and another (16) AIR 1974 Gauhati 31, while discussing the rash and negligent driving and dealing with a case in which, the bus met with an accident while crossing unmanned railway level crossing, it was held that it was the duty of the driver to look both ways of the track before crossing the same. Failure amounts to negligence. 36. In a case between Rajni Soni v. Hemraj (17) 2009 ACJ 551 a tractor-trolley was left on the highway without indication and when motorcycle dashed against it, both the motorcyclist and the driver of the tractor-trolley were found to be equally negligent. 37. Failure amounts to negligence. 36. In a case between Rajni Soni v. Hemraj (17) 2009 ACJ 551 a tractor-trolley was left on the highway without indication and when motorcycle dashed against it, both the motorcyclist and the driver of the tractor-trolley were found to be equally negligent. 37. In Mangilal v. M.P.S.R.T.C., Bhopal (18) AIR 1988 M.P 109 , it was held that the vehicle need not be actually running to treat it as an accident. In that case a person died falling from a ladder attached to the bus, when the bus halted in a bus station. It was held that it is an accident arising out of use of the vehicle. 38. In a case between Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkat Rao (19) 2001 (4) ALD 412 = 2001 (4) ALT 466 it was held as follows. "Where certain miscreants stopped the bus on way and entered it carrying petrol with them and set fire to the bus resulting in death and injuries to several passengers and the conductor and driver failed to prevent the said miscreants from bringing petrol with them, it amounts to negligence on the part of the driver and conductor and the State Transport Corporation is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the claimants and the injured persons." 39. In a case between Medikollda Narasamma v. Shaik Basheer Ahmed (20) AIR 2001 A.P. 114 , it was held as follows. "Expression 'use of motor vehicle' covers the accident happening even when the vehicle is stationary. The cause of the accident should reasonably be proximate to the use of the motor vehicle, whether it is in motion or not. Where the cotton bales loaded in the lorry were loosely packed, and while unloading a bale, it fell on a nearby person resulting in his death, it was held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation." 40. In a case between Balkrishna v. Mahabaliprasad Tiwari and others (21) 1969 ACJ 189, where the wheel of a motor car flew off and struck the claimant, it was held that it is an accident out of the use of the vehicle. 41. In a case between Balkrishna v. Mahabaliprasad Tiwari and others (21) 1969 ACJ 189, where the wheel of a motor car flew off and struck the claimant, it was held that it is an accident out of the use of the vehicle. 41. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kishori Paragniha (22) AIR 1998 M.P 109 , it was held that defence of tyre bursting and failure of breaks or mechanical failure cannot be accepted in the absence of evidence to the effect that the vehicle is kept in roadworthy condition on the date of accident. 42. Therefore, the above examples show that the vehicle need not be in motion at the time of the accident. That means, the driver of the vehicle need not be driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Careless parking of the vehicle without indication or without parking lights and not taking proper care of the parked vehicle also amounts to rash and negligent use of the vehicle. 43. In Vadakke M Kelappan v. Vijayan and others (23) 1986 ACJ 669 (Allahabad), the road became slippery due to heavy rains. The bus skidded on the wet street road and hit a tree. It was held that it was an act of negligence. 44. In Bhagyawati Mittal v. U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and others (24) 1978 ACJ 390 (Allahabad), the accident was caused due to failure of brakes. Since there was no evidence to show that proper maintenance of the bus or replacement of brake-pipes at short intervals, it was held that even nonmaintenance of the vehicle and non-checking of brakes will also amount to negligent use of the vehicle. 45. In a case between Minu B Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan (25) 1977 SC 1248, the accident occurred due to mechanical defect of the vehicle. It appears that there was sudden mechanical breakdown of the vehicle. Then the Apex Court held that even in such circumstances, the owner of the vehicle cannot escape from liability unless he proves that he had taken all the necessary precautions. 46. In a case between New India Assurance Company Limited, Nagarcoil, Kanya Kumari District v. Rajamani and others (26) 2002 (2) An.W.R.267 (Madras), the first respondent in that case went the quarry to load the motorcycles and at that time, he met with an accident. 46. In a case between New India Assurance Company Limited, Nagarcoil, Kanya Kumari District v. Rajamani and others (26) 2002 (2) An.W.R.267 (Madras), the first respondent in that case went the quarry to load the motorcycles and at that time, he met with an accident. The point that came up for consideration is that there was nexus between the use of the motorcycle and the accident. A lorry was parked at a distance of 250 feet away from the quarry. It was held that the nexus between the use of the motorcycle and the accident cannot be said to be remote. The very fact tat the lorry was parked 250 feet away from the quarry is irrelevant. The connection between the spot where the accident occurred and the activity of loading provides a close link between the accident and the use of the motor vehicle. 47. Hence, in view of the above referred decisions, what emerges is that even where the owner of the vehicle fails to take care to check the mechanical defects of the vehicle, brakes of the vehicle etc., or where there is no evidence that he has taken all necessary precautions for maintenance of the vehicle, such acts should also be treated as negligent acts in using the vehicle. Similarly, where it is rainy and the road became slippery and it is not advisable to proceed further but the driver is directed to proceed on such road, such acts also amount to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. 48. In National Insurance Co., v. Shiv Dutt Sharma (2 supra), a learned Judge of Jammu and Kashmir High Court observed as follows. ...In Sneh Sharma's case (supra), the deceased was traveling in Matador bearing registration No.JK 02-0901. He was going to his office situated at Bikram Chowk, Jammu. The driver of the vehicle tried to overtake a bus at Digiana jammu where a powerful bomb exploded in the bus. Passengers of the bus suffered injuries and in some cases these injuries proved to be fatal. Some of the splinters hit the passengers in the Matador in which Pradeep Kumar Sharma was traveling. He died as a result thereof. A claim petition was preferred. ...Emphasis was laid on term 'use of the vehicle' and ultimately it was concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the claim(s) at the very threshold. ... Some of the splinters hit the passengers in the Matador in which Pradeep Kumar Sharma was traveling. He died as a result thereof. A claim petition was preferred. ...Emphasis was laid on term 'use of the vehicle' and ultimately it was concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the claim(s) at the very threshold. ... The facts clearly point out that the owner and the crew of the bus did not pay any attention towards taking precautions for the safety of the passengers although it was well known that militant activities were gaining ground and immediate precautions against such activities were necessary. The accident arose out of the use of the vehicle and there is no doubt about it and the respondents are squarely responsible for the same... ...in Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Srnt Vatschala Warn More, AIR 1991 SC 1769 , on 29.10.1997 at about 03:00 p.m., there was a collision between a petrol tanker and a Truck on the National Highway No.4 near Village Kavatha in the district of Sa tara, State of Maharashtra. As a result of the said collision, the petrol tanker went off the road and fell on its left side at a distance of about 20 feet from the highway. As a result of over-turning of the petrol tanker, the petrol contained in it leaked and collected nearby. After about four hours i.e. at 07:15 p.m., an explosion took place in the petrol tanker. The fire spread. The petrol which stood spread also caught fire. Number of people who had assembled there sustained burn injuries and some of them were not fortunate enough to survive... ...The argument put across was that the petrol tanker was stationary; it was not in use and, therefore, the accident taking place after four hours cannot be connected with the expression' arising out of the use of the motor vehicle' . . . ... Ultimately, it was observed that the accident even though occurring after sometimes would be covered by the expression' arising out of' ... ... That the word 'use' in the context of motor vehicles, has been 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 a position to move due to some break-down or mechanical defect. ... That the word 'use' in the context of motor vehicles, has been 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 a position to move due to some break-down or mechanical defect. Relying on the above mentioned decisions, the Appellate Bench of the High Court has held that the expression 'use of motor vehicle' in Section 92A covers accidents which occur both when the vehicle is in motion and when it is stationary. ...In our opinion, the word 'use' has a wider connotation to cover the period when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary and the use of a vehicle does not cease on account of the vehicle having been rendered immobile on account of a break-down or mechanical defect or accident. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petrol tanker was not in the use at the time when it was lying on its side after the collision with the truck." 49. In Inder Mohilli and others v. Laklrvinder Pal Singh Duggal and others (27) 1993 ACJ 214 (P&H), it was observed as under. ... Death of person occurred in cross fire of security forces and terrorists. Driver of vehicle due to his rash and negligent driving could not stop the vehicle resulting in bringing the vehicle in a range of cross fire. The use of motor vehicle thus caused death of a person. Tribunal can adjudicate upon the claim of claimant but the claimant by adducing adequate evidence shall prove that use of vehicle resulted in death of person died. 50. In Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others v. Om Prakash and others (4 supra), it was observed as hereunder. " ... Where bodily injuries have been caused and some of them were fatal on account of explosion of bomb planted in the bus by some one else after the bus was just started and covered a short distance, to the passengers of bus. The bodily injuries and death of passengers arose out of use of vehicle and the M.A.C.T. could exercise jurisdiction to entertain claims made by the passengers and dependants of passengers who died in explosion of bomb either immediately or after some treatment in hospital. The bodily injuries and death of passengers arose out of use of vehicle and the M.A.C.T. could exercise jurisdiction to entertain claims made by the passengers and dependants of passengers who died in explosion of bomb either immediately or after some treatment in hospital. The Roadways authority was responsible for and negligence in not checking luggage and allowing bus to remain unattended in disturbed times." 51. Thus, it is clear that where the owner or the driver or conductor had not taken necessary precautions for the safety of passengers although terrorist attacks were expected and the vehicle met with an accident in terrorist attacks, it has to be held the accident arose out of the use of the vehicle and the respondents were negligent and therefore are liable to pay compensation. 52. In the above circumstances, in the case on hand, what we have to see is whether the respondents who had taken the bus with police personnel into the forest area to curb the acts of the extremists amount to negligent use of the vehicle. 53. Admittedly, the land mine blast was intended to kill the police personnel. It is an admitted case that both the deceased were travelling by the bus at the time of the landmine blast. Admittedly, the police party was proceeding to investigate a case in Crime No.13 of 2001, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341. 323, 307, 435 read with 34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Senior Police Officers such as Superintendent of Police, S.D.P.O. and others were in that police party. Some were proceeding on motorcycles and some were proceeding in police jeep. Unfortunately, both the deceased were travelling in the bus. A reading of the FIR and other records would show that it is the extremists who blasted the landmine resulting in death of both the deceased. 54. Admittedly, they were proceeding in the forest area in which, extremists were moving. In such a situation, the police higher officials should have been very cautious and careful. With their rich experience, they ought to have visualized that the extremists may keep a watch on the movements of the police and may use landmines to kill the police personnel. 54. Admittedly, they were proceeding in the forest area in which, extremists were moving. In such a situation, the police higher officials should have been very cautious and careful. With their rich experience, they ought to have visualized that the extremists may keep a watch on the movements of the police and may use landmines to kill the police personnel. The past experience shows that as and when police officers were careless and were going into forest area on vehicles, the extremists used landmines and blasted the vehicles. In the background of the events that occurred previously, the police higher officials ought not to have taken the bus into the forest area without due care and caution, ignoring the fact that the extremists may use landmines at any time in the forest area. Taking a bus with police personnel into the forest area where extremists are moving without proper care and precaution is nothing but a negligent act by the police higher officials. Normally, the practice is to do combing operation by walk or by motorcycles. The Act of the superior police officers, without visualizing the consequences and asking the police personnel to travel by bus into the forest area, is nothing but, in our considered view, a 'negligent act'. 55. We are of the view that the driver of I the vehicle alone need not be rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, but if there is any negligent act on the part of the owner of the vehicle or on the part of the persons responsible for plying the vehicle, it also amounts to rash and negligent driving. For example, when a river is flowing and if the owner or conductor of a vehicle asks the driver of the vehicle to pass through the river and the vehicle capsized in the middle of the river, then the owner or the manager of the vehicle cannot escape from liability as it also amounts to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. To be more clear, For example, if a road is under repair or a bridge is about to collapse, knowing very well the condition of the road or bridge, asking the driver to pass through such road or bridge also amounts to rash and negligent driving. The words 'rash and negligent driving' has to be given a wider meaning and not a narrow meaning. The words 'rash and negligent driving' has to be given a wider meaning and not a narrow meaning. It must cover all the circumstances wherein it appears that the persons responsible for taking the vehicle on public road are negligent and not careful in visualizing the consequences for any reason, then it must be held that they were negligent and the accident occurred out of the use of the motor vehicle. Therefore, any negligent act on the part of the owner or on the part of the manager or on the part of the person responsible for the vehicle has also to be treated as rash and negligent driving. 56. In view of the same, in the present case, we are of the considered view that the accident is nothing but a negligent act of the respondents and, therefore, the respondents are liable to pay compensation. What is required to be seen is whether the claimants are entitled for compensation or not and what is just and reasonable compensation to be awarded. Under the circumstances of the case, if once the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the accident occurred by use of vehicle in public place and if the claimants are entitled for compensation, the Tribunal has a point to award compensation. Issue No.4 57. The only other point raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the Government has already paid exgratia and other benefits to the claimants. The settled legal position is that the exgratia and other allowances paid to the legal heirs of the deceased cannot be taken into consideration for determining the compensation under the provisions of the Act. 58. In State of A.P. v. K. Pushpalatha (3 supra), a learned Judge of this Court held as follows. ...In view of the above judgments, it is clear that providing of employment to anyone of the eligible dependants of the deceased, who dies in harness due to the motor accident cannot be taken as a ground to deny the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act after adjudicating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. Similarly, payment of ex gratia by an employer or the government and payment of amounts, viz., Provident Fund, Group Insurance or any amounts of such nature, which are contributed by the deceased because of his mandatory service conditions cannot be deducted from the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988." 59. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd., rep by its Deputy Manager, Secunderabad v. B. Lalitha (Smt.) and others (1 supra), it was held that" insurer cannot disown the liability to pay compensation for the death of workman in accident during course of his employment on the ground that some ex gratia amount was paid directly to dependants of the deceased by anybody as it does not amount to compensation ". 60. In Mousumi Hansda v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (28) I (2001) ACC 540 (DB) (Cal.) = 2001 ACJ 1375 , it was held that "where the wife of the deceased was appointed on compassionate grounds, no deductions are permissible on that ground. " 61. In National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Renu Bala (29) II (2005) ACC495 (DB) (P&H), it was held that "Family pension received by the claimants should not be deducted in determining dependency of claimants." 62. In view of the same, we are of the view that the claimants are entitled for compensation. Issue Nos.5 and 6: 63. Since the accident occurred in the year 2001, we are of the view that it may not be desirable to remand the matter to the Tribunal for the purpose of determining just and reasonable compensation. The relief to be granted to the appellants and the amount to be awarded to them etc., in both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, is as under. C.M.A.No.4844 of 2004:- 64. In this appeal, according to the deposition of P.W.1, she is the wife of the deceased - Bhupati Sriramulu, claimants 2 and 3 are her children and claimants 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. The date of birth of the deceased is 01.07.1967. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased was aged about 34 years on the date of accident. According to P.W.1, the deceased was having further 24 years of service. The date of birth of the deceased is 01.07.1967. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased was aged about 34 years on the date of accident. According to P.W.1, the deceased was having further 24 years of service. The Last Pay Certificate of the deceased shows that his gross salary was Rs.5,017/- and total deductions were Rs.435/- which include Rs.200/- towards GPF (S), Rs.50/- towards APGLI, Rs.15/towards GIS, Rs.20/- towards P.T., and Rs.150/- towards F.A. Thus, his net salary was Rs.4,582/- 65. It is also settled law that the future prospects of increase in salary and promotions etc., should be taken into consideration. In Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (30) 2010 (1) An.W.R. 402 (SC) = 2009 (6) SCC 121 = 2009 (4) SCJ 91, the Apex Court held that 50% of the actual salary of the deceased has to be added towards future prospects of the deceased, where the deceased is having a permanent job and is aged below 40 years. Therefore, if the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.5,000/- per month and 50% of the same is added to it towards future prospects, the income of the deceased can be determined at Rs.7,500/- per month. As far as the amount to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, admittedly, the total number of dependents, according to P.W.I, is five. Therefore, 1/4th of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, which comes to Rs.1,875/- Thus, loss of earnings comes to Rs.5,625/- {Rs.7,500/- (-) Rs.1,875/-} and the total loss of earnings per annum comes to Rs.67,500/{Rs.5,625/- x 12}. Since the deceased was aged about 34 years on the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier, according to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarala Varma supra, is 16. Thus the total loss of earnings works out to Rs.10,80,000/- (Rs.67,500/- x 16). Apart from this, the claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, first claimant is entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estates (sic. consortium) and they are also entitled for Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total, the amount to be awarded comes to Rs.10,97,000/- (Rupees ten lakh ninety seven thousand only). The claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 66. consortium) and they are also entitled for Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total, the amount to be awarded comes to Rs.10,97,000/- (Rupees ten lakh ninety seven thousand only). The claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 66. In the circumstances of the case, the amount shall be apportioned to the claimants in the following manner. Out of the total amount awarded, the first claimant shall be paid an amount of Rs.3,97,000/-. Claimants 2 and 3 shall be paid Rs.2,50,000/- each and claimants 4 and 5 shall be paid Rs.1,00,000/- each. The amounts awarded to claimants 2 and 3 shall be kept in Fixed Deposits for a period of three years. Out of the total amount awarded to the first claimant, she shall be permitted to withdraw Rs.1,50,000/- and the interest accrued thereon till today, from her share of amount. Similarly, claimants 4 and 5 shall be permitted to withdraw the amounts awarded to them and the interest accrued thereon. C.M.A.No.4845 of 2004:- 67. In this appeal, the first claimant is the wife, second claimant is daughter and claimants 3 and 4 are the sons of the deceased Shaik Ismail. P.W.3 is the son of the deceased Shaik Ismail. According to his deposition, his father was working as Driver and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. His further case is that his father was having another five years of service from the date of accident. The Post-mortem Certificate of the deceased Shaik Ismail shows that he was aged about 55 years at the date of accident. The petitioners have not filed the salary certificate of the deceased though they have mentioned that the deceased was earning Rs.7,500/- per month. Since the son of the accused (sic. deceased) (P.W.3) himself has stated that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, the same has to be taken as the salary of the deceased on the date of accident. As per the judgment in Sarala Varma supra, no addition towards future prospects have to be made, where the deceased is aged about 50 years. Therefore, the income of the deceased, in this case, has to be taken at Rs.5,000/- per month only. As per the judgment in Sarala Varma supra, no addition towards future prospects have to be made, where the deceased is aged about 50 years. Therefore, the income of the deceased, in this case, has to be taken at Rs.5,000/- per month only. Since the total number of claimants are four, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses and the loss of earnings would come to Rs.3,750/- per month and Rs.45,000/- per year. The appropriate multiplier to the age group of 51 to 55 years is 11. Thus, the total loss of earnings come to Rs.4,95,000/-. The claimants are also entitled Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, the first claimant is entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and the claimants are also entitled for Rs.2,000/- towards last rituals of the deceased. Hence, the total amount to be awarded comes to Rs.5,07,000/- (Rupees five lakh seven thousand only). 68. The amount shall be apportioned to the claimants in the following manner. Out of the total amount, the first claimant shall be paid Rs.2,07,000/- and claimants 2, 3 and 4 shall be paid Rs.1,00,000/- each. The claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The first claimant shall be permitted to withdraw Rs.1,07,000/- with interest accrued thereon and claimants 2, 3 and 4 shall be permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount of their share with interest accrued thereon and also costs of this petition. 69. If the claimants in both the C.M.A.s are in need of money, they may approach the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Vizianagaram, seeking permission to withdraw the amounts ordered to be deposited in the Fixed Deposits and the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Vizianagaram, may consider their application and pass appropriate orders as he deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in accordance with law. 70. In the result, the award in the impugned order dated 27.10.2004 passed in M.V.O.P.No.725 of 2001 and M.V.O.P.No.818 of 2001 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Vizianagaram, is set aside as far as the issue of use of vehicle in negligent manner is concerned, and modified to the extent indicated above as far as the payment of compensation is concerned, and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.4844 of 2004 and 4845 of 2004 are allowed accordingly. No costs.