JUDGMENT : Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 18.02.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.83 of 2013 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal [Special Sub Judge], Tirunelveli. 1. One Joes Antony was travelling in a passenger vehicle bearing Registration Number TN-75-D-3462 on 16.02.2013 at about 08.30 P.M. The driver of the said vehicle had negligently hit a motor cyclist. The rider of the motorcyclist fell down and sustained injuries. It was a crowded locality. Immediately, the mob assembled in the scene. The driver out of panic ran away from the spot. The claimant, who was an occupant in the vehicle, was unfortunately cornered by the mob. He was beaten up. He suffered injuries. Contending that the insurer of the vehicle in which he travelled has to be made liable to pay the compensation, he filed M.C.O.P.No.83 of 2013 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal [Special Sub Court], Tirunelveli. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,03,010/- as compensation with interest. 2. Contending that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the insurer, CMA(MD).No.1110 of 2015 has been filed by the insurance company. 3. Seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimant filed CMA(MD).No.45 of 2016. During the pendency of this proceedings, the original claimant died and by way of CMP(MD).Nos.10114 to 10116 of 2017 in CMA(MD).No.45 of 2016, his legal representatives have been brought on record. 4.Thiru.S.Srinivasa Ragavan, learned counsel appearing for the insurer, drew my attention to the language set out in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Accident Act, 1988. He would contend that the insurer must satisfy only against the liability incurred by the insured in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. It is his contention that if the death or injury is caused by the use of the vehicle, then definitely the insurer will be liable. But, in this case, the vehicle after hitting the motorcyclist had halted. It was in a stationary position. The injury to the claimant was caused on account of beating by the members of the mob. In fact, even the First Information Report was registered only against the members of the mob for the attack. But, in this case, the vehicle after hitting the motorcyclist had halted. It was in a stationary position. The injury to the claimant was caused on account of beating by the members of the mob. In fact, even the First Information Report was registered only against the members of the mob for the attack. He would make a distinction between the injury arising out of the accident and the injury arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. He therefore, contend that the award must be set aside insofar as the appellant insurer is concerned. 5. Per contra, the Mr.T.Selvakumaran, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would contend that the expression “arising out of”, found in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act deserves to be expansively interpreted. He wanted this Court to sustain the impugned award. 6. No doubt, the claimant was injured only in the attack by the members of mob. But the mob had assembled in the scene only because of the use of the motor vehicle. The driver, who drove the vehicle in which the claimant was travelling had hit the motorcyclist and caused him injuries. It is this that caused the mob to assemble in the spot. The expression “arising out of” has to be liberally and expansively construed as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1999 ACJ 777 (SC) (Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam& More). It was held therein that the causal relationship between the user of the motor vehicle and accident which resulted in injury or death caused to the victim need not to be direct and proximate. This decision was followed by a subsequent Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2011(1) TN MAC 144 (SC) in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Yadu Sambhaji More & others. In both the cases, a petrol tanker was involved. On account of a collision, the tanker was capsized. The petrol started leaking. The local people assembled near the accident site and started to collect the petrol. Suddenly, the petrol caught fire and in the ensuing explosion, there were a number of casualties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the accident arose out of the use of the motor vehicle. 7. The petrol started leaking. The local people assembled near the accident site and started to collect the petrol. Suddenly, the petrol caught fire and in the ensuing explosion, there were a number of casualties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the accident arose out of the use of the motor vehicle. 7. I am of the view that the distinction between the injury arising out of the use of the vehicle and the injury arising out of the accident caused by the use of the motor vehicle is a distinction without difference. The Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. Therefore, the expression employed therein has to be so interpreted as to give effect to the legislative objective and intention. I am, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal correctly applied the provisions of law and came to the right decision. The liability was rightly fixed on the insurer and it does not warrant any interference. 8. Coming to the quantum of compensation, I am of the view that the Tribunal was right in fixing the compensation. It also does not warrant any interference. Therefore, the award dated 18.02.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.83 of 2013 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal [Special Sub Judge], Tirunelveli is confirmed. 9. The insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount of Rs.3,03,010/- (Rupees Three lakhs three thousand ten only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and costs from the date of petition till the date of realization, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount already deposited, if any. On such deposit, Mary Sheeba, wife of the deceased claimant will be entitled to withdraw the entire compensation, by filing appropriate petition before the Tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn, if any. 10. Accordingly, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.