Judgment : Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 30.6.2004 passed by the Member, MACT, Palghar. The original applicants/appellants are the widow, minor children and parents of the deceased. The accident has taken place on 7.12.1998. Deceased Jayantilal Valjibhai Patel was working as a Civil Contractor. On 7.12.1998 a lorry loaded with marble sheets arrived at the business premises of the deceased. The lorry was parked and deceased boarded the lorry to verify the consignment whether it was sent as per the order or not. When he was counting the marble sheets in the lorry, suddenly the lorry started and due to the motion, the marble sheets fell on the body of the lorry and Jayantilal also came below heavy marble sheets. He sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to death due to those injuries. The applicants/appellants thereafter filed the claim of compensation for Rs.4,62,833/-. The application was filed against the owner of the lorry as opponent no.1 and insurance company as opponent no.2. The Member, MACT recorded the evidence, considered it and dismissed the application. It was dismissed on two counts; one on the point of negligence and secondly that the Court held that accident did not occur out of the use of the motor vehicle. 2. Notice was served on the opponents. None appeared for opponent no.1. However, appearance was filed by the Counsel for Insurance company. The matter appeared on the board and called out twice. However, none appeared. So arguments of the appellants were heard and matter was again kept for the submissions of the learned Counsel for the insurance company. The matter appeared twice for the same reason as part-heard. However, none appeared for the insurance company. Counsel for the appellants also produced the previous two notices which were acknowledged by the insurance company earlier in March-2010 and July-2010 when the matter reached for hearing and the Counsel was not present. Thus, the adequate precaution was taken by the Court as well as by the appellants to communicate about the hearing of the appeal to the respondent-company. In all fairness, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants are considered independently on merits. 3. The point of determination is that :- Finding "Whether the appellants are entitled to claim the compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act or not? Yes 4. In all fairness, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants are considered independently on merits. 3. The point of determination is that :- Finding "Whether the appellants are entitled to claim the compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act or not? Yes 4. Perused the judgment and the other documents including the evidence of the witnesses and the written statement of the insurance company. Applicants have examined one Valjibhai Hirjibhai Patel who is the father of the deceased. He gave detailed evidence about how the accident has taken place. He deposed that the deceased was a partner in the construction business by name Vastu Developers who had placed the order of the marbles and the truck was to be unloaded. At the same time accident took place when the victim was counting the sheets in the vehicle. Second witness Hemant Hasmukhbia Permar was also examined. He was Chartered Accountant. He was examined on the point of income. He has said that annual income of the deceased was Rs.47,000/-to Rs.48,000/-. The maximum limit as per the structure formula was Rs.40,000/-. So the evidence of PW-2 is not considered. No evidence was adduced by the insurance company or the opponent no.2. 5. The accident has taken place in a very peculiar manner. There is no dispute the way the accident has taken place. The lorry loaded with the marble sheets was in a stationery condition when the applicant climbed into the lorry. He was counting the sheets. At the same time the lorry moved. Thus the lorry was set in motion by the driver/conductor. Due to that motion, the arranged marble sheets in the lorry were displaced and they fell on the deceased. 6. The question is whether the accident which has taken in such a manner can be said to be as an accident caused due to the use of the motor vehicle or not? Apparently, one may say that such accident is not out of the use of the motor vehicle, as the motor vehicle did not collide with any other object or the deceased, therefore, this does not appear to be an accident taken place out of the use of the motor vehicle. 7. The accident causing out of the use of the motor vehicle cannot be restricted to the vehicle dashing on other vehicle or object or a human being. 7. The accident causing out of the use of the motor vehicle cannot be restricted to the vehicle dashing on other vehicle or object or a human being. The phrase "accident causing out of the use of the vehicle" is to be given wider meaning. A use of the vehicle can be of any type. If the accident is caused due to the motion of the vehicle then it is to be covered under the Act. Use of the vehicle should not be restricted to plying of vehicle on the road. Vehicle in motion is not restricted to its motion when it is driven on the road only. This needs deliberation. Court has to examine whether that particular motion of the vehicle has a direct nexus with the occurrence of the accident or not. 8. In the present case, the deceased climbed the lorry for the purpose of counting sheets. At that time, lorry was parked near the business place of the appellant. So this act of climbing the vehicle which is parked i.e for to verify the marble sheets, it was a part of his job. If he would have climbed the lorry when the lorry was already in motion, then some negligence would have been attributed to the deceased. A yardstick of requirement of reasonable precaution is applied to determine negligence. The only precaution that a person has to take while climbing the vehicle that it is not moving. The application is filed under Section 163-A of MV Act as it is a special provision for the payment of the compensation under the structured formula basis, wherein negligence is not required to be proved. However, under Section 163-A, it is necessary for the appellants to prove that the death or permanent disablement has taken place due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. Use of motor vehicle as stated earlier is not to be understood in a narrow sense. If the lorry would not have been set in motion, then obviously the marble sheets would not have been moved and fell on the deceased. Thus, falling marble sheets on the deceased and deceased sustaining injuries out of that fall of heavy sheets, is a direct nexus between the accident and the use of the vehicle. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants has produced the rules of India Motor Tariffs. Thus, falling marble sheets on the deceased and deceased sustaining injuries out of that fall of heavy sheets, is a direct nexus between the accident and the use of the vehicle. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants has produced the rules of India Motor Tariffs. These tariffs are adopted by and binding on all the insurance companies in India. Section 2 of the Tariffs is in respect of liability to third parties wherein it is stated that "subject to the Limits of Liability" as laid down in the Schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the Insured against all sums including claimant's cost and expenses which the Insured will become legally liable to pay in respect of :- (i) death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle". (Emphasis placed) Thus the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation claimed for any accident which has taken place due to loading and unloading. Learned Counsel for the appellants has assisted the Court by producing the citation of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil & Anr. Vs. Vatschala Uttam More reported in 1991 ACJ 777. The Supreme Court in that case has held that the word 'use of motor vehicle' is to be given a wider connotation and it also covers the accident which takes place when the vehicle in motion and when it is stationary. It is rightly held that when the vehicle is immobile or not moving, it cannot be said that it ceases the use under the Act. Thus, the use of motor vehicle in fact, is considered as continuous use so long as it is mobile or immobile. It is held that the view taken by the Tribunal is not as per the legal provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. It needs to be set aside. 10. The applicant was 28 years old at the time of accident. There is evidence to show that he was drawing Rs.27,000/-and therefore, the maximum income comes to Rs.40,000/-per annum as per the Schedule-II of Section 163-A. So it comes into Rs.4,53,333/-plus consortium Rs.5000 plus Funeral Rs.2000 plus loss of estate Rs. 2500 total amount comes to Rs.4,62,833/-, it is allowed with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the application. Appeal is allowed in the above terms.