Judgment Vinod K Sharma, J. 1 This filed by the Insurance Company is directed against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur. 2 The learned Tribunal allowed a petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act) by granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,45,000/- (Three lakh forty five thousand only) to the claimants for the death of SavinderSingh son of Naranjan Singh who did due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck bearing registration No. PB-06- 2705. The petition being under Section 163-A of the Act, negligent was not to be proved. 3 The appellant/Insurance Company contested the claim petition, on the plea that the petition under Section 163-A of the Act was not competent as at the time of accident the truck was not in use, but was stationary The factum of accident was also denied. 4 The learned Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties, framed following issues :- i. Whether Savinder Singh died in Motor accident caused by truck No. PB-06-2705 which was being driven by respondent No. l? OPA ii. Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount of compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPA iii. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR iv. Relief 5 The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding, that deceased Savinder was sleeping on the truck and fell down and died. The learned Tribunal held that it could not be said, that he did not die on account of use of truck bearing registration No. PB-06-2705. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimants. 6 As already mentioned, the compensation was assessed at Rs. 3,45,000/- (Three lakh forty five thousand only). The liability was fixed as joint and several. 7 Mr. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimants. 6 As already mentioned, the compensation was assessed at Rs. 3,45,000/- (Three lakh forty five thousand only). The liability was fixed as joint and several. 7 Mr. Ravinder Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant referred to Section 163-A of the act, which reads as under:- "163-A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structuredformula basis :- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation.- For the purposes of this subsection, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under subsection (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrnongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule." 8 The contention of the learned counsel of the appellant was that pre- requisite to entertain the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act, is that the vehicle should be in use. Once it is proved that the truck was standing, therefore, it could not be said that the vehicle was in use, so as to attract the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act. The award passed by learned Tribunal cannot be sustained. 9 It is also the contention of Mr. Ravinder Arora, learned counsel for the appellant that the eye-witness to the accident did not support the case, therefore the accident was also not proved. 10 On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applant. The award passed by learned Tribunal cannot be sustained. 9 It is also the contention of Mr. Ravinder Arora, learned counsel for the appellant that the eye-witness to the accident did not support the case, therefore the accident was also not proved. 10 On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applant. The words "use of motor vehicle" in Section 163-A of the Act, cannot be construed in a narrow sense, being a beneficial Legislation. Once, the truck was in use and had temporarily stopped, at a place where the accident took place, it could not result in conclusion, that the vehicle was not in use. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the vehicle was not in use, as envisaged under Section 163-A of the Act, therefore, cannot be accepted. The vehicle was actually in use and had only stopped for some reason on the rod. The second contention that accident was not proved to prove negligence is also be noticed to be rejected, as under Section 163-A negligence is of required to be proved. 11 The learned counsel for the appellant also contends that once the deceased was sleeping on the truck, after taking had fallen down, it could not be said to be an accident to attract the provisions of the Act. This contention again deserves to be rejected, as once a person fell down from the motor vehicle and dies, it would be proved that death was caused due to use of vehicle "accident" means unfortunate harmful event that takes place unexpectedly and unintentionally, which may happen by chance, or without apparent cause" (Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Eleventh Edition) this contention, therefore, also cannot be accepted. No merit.Dismissed. No Costs.