ORDER : S.G. Shah, J. (Oral) - Heard learned advocate Mr.Ishan Joshi appearing with learned advocate Mr.G.M. Joshi for the appellant and Mr. V.K. Vashi, learned advocate for the respondent. Perused the record. 2. The appellant herein being ST Corporation is the owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident. Whereas, respondent No.1 is original injured claimant and respondent No.2 is aged son of the deceased victim being opponent No.1 in claim petition. The claim petition is preferred by respondent No.1 being widow of the victim of road accident under section 163A of the M.V. Act claiming Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation against the ST Corporation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Ahmedabad. In such Motor Accident Claims Petition No.111/2011, the son of the deceased being opponent No.2 though served has remained absent. Thereby, though he is not entitled to pay compensation, he is also entitled to get benefit of compensation because he has neither claimed or contested the claim petition by his mother nor he is dependent of the deceased victim. 3. The sum and substance of the appeal is to the effect that there is no vehicular accident at all and, therefore, owner of the vehicle being ST Corporation cannot be held responsible to pay compensation. For the purpose, factual detail of the accident needs to be recollected as recorded by the Tribunal in its judgment. "... it is the case of the claimant that, on date 25.12.2010 claimant and her husband (deceased) companied with other persons were going to Ayodhya for Darshan by travelling in GSRTC bus departed from Bhuj. When bus reached to Geeta mandir Bus Depot, Ahmedabad, the driver had parked the bus at Stand No.4 at that time about 2.45 pm deceased climbed top of the roof of the bus fro bringing down his luggage and all of a sudden he fell down on the earth and sustained serious bodily injuries. Therefore, he was shifted to the VS Hospital, Ahmedabad for treatment purpose. While he was under medical treatment on 26.12.2012 succumbed to the injured. Police was informed by the hospital authority. Police of Kagdapith police station has made entry and recorded the report and prepared Panchnama of the place of incident, inquest panchnama, medical officer has performed autopsy on dead body of the deceased and prepared post mortem report. While he was under medical treatment on 26.12.2012 succumbed to the injured. Police was informed by the hospital authority. Police of Kagdapith police station has made entry and recorded the report and prepared Panchnama of the place of incident, inquest panchnama, medical officer has performed autopsy on dead body of the deceased and prepared post mortem report. As alleged by the claimant that fateful incident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of offending bus. Therefore, claimant has claimed against GSRT Corporation... " 4. However, the application being under section 163-A of the Act, practically claimant is not supposed to either plead or prove negligence of the driver of the vehicle. Thereby, what is required to be proved is limited to the extent that accident itself has arisen out of the use of the motor vehicle considering the language of section 163- A of the Act; so also Section 166 which empowers the Tribunals to award compensation due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. Since application is under section 163A so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is as indicated in 2nd Schedule to the Statute and, therefore when only Rs. 2,73,500/- has been awarded that too with interest @ 8% only, there cannot be any dispute so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, since such quantum has been arrived at by the the Tribunal relying upon the statutory provision; so also available evidence on record regarding age and earning capacity of the deceased victim. 5. Therefore, the only issue remains in the appeal is with reference to the liability of the owner to pay compensation in such a case when according to appellant, the incident had not taken place as a vehicular accident when deceased victim had fallen down from the bus while unloading his luggage from the roof of the bus. 5. Therefore, the only issue remains in the appeal is with reference to the liability of the owner to pay compensation in such a case when according to appellant, the incident had not taken place as a vehicular accident when deceased victim had fallen down from the bus while unloading his luggage from the roof of the bus. It is sufficient to record herein that the interpretation of phrase "accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle" is quite wide enough and, there are catena of decisions by Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein all probable cause of accident has been considered so as to fix the liability of the owner of the vehicle and in turn it, insurer with reference to the private motor vehicle so as to confirm that when incident has taken place with the same vehicle when use of the motor vehicle can be considered for fixing liability of the owner and insurer in private vehicles. 6. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that victim was passenger of the bus since he had climbed on roof of the bus to unload his luggage. Thereby, it is quite clear that the persons in control of the ST bus being driver and conductor had not bothered to manage for unloading the luggage which was kept on roof of the bus either by trained paid porters or as per rule their own porters but allowed the passengers to climb on the bus for loading and / or unloading the luggage on the roof of the bus. 7. Therefore, it can certainly be said that incident has taken place out of the use of the motor vehicle and death of the victim has arisen because of such use of the motor vehicle when he fallen down from the top of the bus while unloading his luggage. In simple words terminology "the vehicular accident" is not limited to the extent that it may happen only when vehicle is in moving condition. In simple words terminology "the vehicular accident" is not limited to the extent that it may happen only when vehicle is in moving condition. A reference to the case of Kalim Khan vs. Filimidabee reported in ACJ (2018) SC 2025 is relevant wherein after referring several previous decisions on the subject, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase "out of use of the motor vehicle" in its widest since when it is held that even digging of the well with use of blasting machine was carried on in the field of the owner and the tractor was used for digging of the well with the blasting machine. and if a heavy stone came flying and fell on his head, as a consequence of which, he sustained grievous injuries, then also, such injured person by is entitled to compensation from the owner of the vehicle under the Act because he received the injuries because of the use of the motor vehicle though it was stationary. 8. In view of above facts and circumstances, when interpretation of the phrase "out of the use of the motor vehicle" is wide enough so as to include several incidents which occurred because of actual use of the vehicle for any purpose and when such purposes are not limited for transportation only or when vehicle is in moving condition. 9. Because the concept of movement being not intrinsically or inherently connected with the use and the term 'use' having been connotatively expanded, there can be no doubt that the same can also be extended to the arena/sphere of a claim advanced under Section 110 of the 1939 Act. Heavy onus is caste on the driver to avoid incident while the vehicle is in use. If the term 'use' in its conceptual sweep engulfs no motion or no movement or stationariness, then by logical corollary it is made essential that the driver or for that matter any agent of the owner should be careful and non-negligent. The definition of 'use' having been expanded in its broader canvas, it has to clothe in its sweep other categories of negligence. It is limpid that the expression 'use of the vehicle' under certain circumstances can be attracted when the vehicle is stationary or static. 10. The definition of 'use' having been expanded in its broader canvas, it has to clothe in its sweep other categories of negligence. It is limpid that the expression 'use of the vehicle' under certain circumstances can be attracted when the vehicle is stationary or static. 10. In the present case, when victim was certainly passenger of the Bus and when he had climbed on the bus to unload his luggage and while doing so when he met with an accident wherein he received fatal injuries and succumbed to the death, it can certainly be said that incident had arisen out of the use of the motor vehicle and, therefore, the appellant cannot rescue themselves from their liability to pay compensation to the victim or his legal heirs. 11. In view of above discussion and factual details, there is no substance in the appeal and, hence, the same stands dismissed summarily. 12. In view of dismissal of main matter, connected Civil Application does not survive and hence, the same stands disposed of.