JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant. 2. Injured respondent No.1-Saybu @ Sahebrao, preferred Motor Accident Claim Petition No.26 of 2001 under the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging that on 13, November, 1998 in an accident of motor vehicle bearing registration No.MH-14/6417 was driven by respondent No.2 and owned by the present appellant, he suffered serious injury resulting in disability. The said truck loaded with iron pipes was parked on a slope. The said iron pipes slipped from the said truck towards the side of slope, resulting into the plank of the truck having got broken down as a result pipes slipped and fell on the body of the claimant/respondent No.1, resulting into the claimant suffering serious injuries. The claimant/respondent No.1 was admitted in a hospital at Karanja and subsequent thereto the hospital at Sevagram as he suffered permanent disability because of serious injuries. 3. The claim petition was preferred, which was resisted by the appellant by filing written statement at Exhibit-25. The appellant (respondent No.1 before the Tribunal) has not disputed the accident and also registration of offence under sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No.167 of 1999. The issues in view of contest were framed at Exhibit-44. 4. In support of the claim, the claimant/respondent No.1 has entered into the witness box to substantiate his claim. He has also relied on the Police complaint dated 9th March, 1999 about the accident, FIR Exhibit-86, Final Report Exhibit-85, spot panchnama Exhibit-87 and panchnama of the offending vehicle Exhibit-88. 5. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, recorded findings that respondent No.1/claimant has proved that the offending truck was rashly and negligently driven (i.e. negligently parked on the slope). 6. In the aforesaid background, the counsel for the appellant, who is the owner of the vehicle, would claim that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation particularly when the vehicle in question was stationary. According to him, there is no material on record to infer that the stationary vehicle has resulted into accident and causing permanent disability. The counsel for the appellant further claims that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.2 herein was acquitted and as such, the negligence on the part of the appellant cannot be inferred. 7. According to him, there is no material on record to infer that the stationary vehicle has resulted into accident and causing permanent disability. The counsel for the appellant further claims that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.2 herein was acquitted and as such, the negligence on the part of the appellant cannot be inferred. 7. Shri Dhande, learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant would support the award and urge that the word used in section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act as that of “use” of the vehicle includes the vehicle, which was driven, under repair, simply parked, kept stationary or left unattended. He has drawn support from the judgment of this Court in the mater of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Indubai w/o Uttamrao Deore and others, reported in 2018 (1) Mh.L.J. 704 . 8. I have considered the rival submissions. 9. The fact about the claimant/respondent No.1 having suffered injury, in the accident caused because of slipping out of iron pipes from offending truck after breaking side plank from vehicle bearing registration No.MH-14/6417 on 13th November, 1998 can be inferred from the Police papers such as Police complaint dated 9th March, 1999, FIR Exhibit-86, Final Report Exhibit-85, spot panchnama Exhibit-87 and panchanama of vehicle Exhibit-88. 10. The registration of offence being Crime No.167 of 199 against the respondents to the claim petition is not disputed. 11. Though it is brought to my notice that the truck was stationary at the relevant time and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in such an eventuality cannot be invoked for claiming compensation, however, I see no legal support or basis for such submissions. Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for the Claim Tribunals. The explanation to said section speaks of a claim for compensation in respect of accident involving death or bodily injury to a person arising out of the use of motor vehicles. The word “negligence” is already interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Lachoo Ram and ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, reported in AIR 2014 SC (Suppl.) 1218, wherein it is held that on the basis of material on record, the order of payment of compensation can be made in case if it is proved that the accident was caused by rash and negligent act of the driver of the vehicle. 12. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, reported in AIR 2014 SC (Suppl.) 1218, wherein it is held that on the basis of material on record, the order of payment of compensation can be made in case if it is proved that the accident was caused by rash and negligent act of the driver of the vehicle. 12. In case in hand from the Police papers, it could be easily inferred that the truck which was carrying iron pipes was negligently parked and same remained unattended as a consequence of iron pipes slipped from the same, which fell on the claimant/respondent No.1 making him suffered serious injuries, resulted in permanent disability. 13. Even in case of a stationary vehicle or parked vehicle, the provisions of section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act are attracted, as the said vehicle is used for transporting the goods. 14. In the aforesaid background, the award of compensation cannot be faulted with. Though it is claimed by the appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle was acquitted of the charge of negligent driving, however, I hardly see any material to that effect produced on record to substantiate said contention. The award of compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was very much justified. As such, in my opinion, no case for interference in appellate jurisdiction is made out by the appellant. 15. The appeal as such fails and the same stands dismissed.