JUDGMENT : a. This is an appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, dated 31.03.2015. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under: 1. The respondents 1 to 5, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Mohammad Shafi Geela, on 14th March 2011. 2. It was stated that the deceased had been engaged as a labourer with the vehicle bearing registration no. JK01-2445 owned by respondent no. 6, for purposes of loading stones in the truck in a Stone Quarry also owned by respondent no. 6. 3. Response was filed to the claim petition in which a defence was taken inter-alia that the Insurance Company was not liable on the ground that the offending vehicle which was insured by the Company was stationary and therefore, could not be said to be involved in a motor vehicle accident arising out of the use of the said vehicle as it was stationary. 4. Upon the response having been filed the following issues were framed: i. Whether on 14.03.2011, the deceased namely Mohammad Shafi Geela while loading stones on to the vehicle (tipper) bearing registration No. JK01-2445 at Quarry Zantraj, Khrew, and when some stones fell from the Quarry the deceased got seriously injured due to which the deceased received multiple injuries over his body and was immediately rushed to the hospital and later on succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. ii. Whether the driver was knowingly plying the offending vehicle with invalid and ineffective DL and other vehicular documents like RC etc. on the material date of accident, if yes, the insured has committed breach of insurance contract absolving the respondent insurance company from its liability on account of petitioner’s claim. iii. In case the issue no. 1, is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to, from whom and in what proportion. iv. Relief. 5. By virtue of Judgment and award dated 31.03.2015, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded an amount of Rs. 4,17,400/- in favour of the claimants and hence, the present appeal. 6. 1, is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to, from whom and in what proportion. iv. Relief. 5. By virtue of Judgment and award dated 31.03.2015, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded an amount of Rs. 4,17,400/- in favour of the claimants and hence, the present appeal. 6. On a perusal of the evidence, which was discussed by the Tribunal and is on record, it can be seen that the claimants had succeeded in proving that the deceased had been hit by stones in the Quarry and had received injuries which later proved to be fatal while he was not only engaged in the process of loading stones in the vehicle owned by Respondent no. 6, but also was in the vehicle at the time when he was so hit by the stones. 7. Petitioner’s witness Ghulam Mohammad, appears to have made a statement in this regard during the cross-examination by the counsel for the Insurance Company. It is thus, clear that the deceased had died during the period when he was engaged as a labourer with the tipper and was involved in loading of the stones in the tipper which no doubt was stationary. 8. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the Insurance Company could absolve itself of its liability to indemnify the insured only because the vehicle in question was stationary. The answer to the aforementioned proposition is clearly in the negative in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in “Shivaji Dayanand Patil and Another Vs. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More, AIR 1991 (SC) 1769 ” wherein the Court held that the expression “arising out of” had a much wider connotation than the expression “caused by” which indicated that for purposes of awarding compensation, the casual relationship between the use of the motor vehicle and the accident resulting in death or permanent disability was not required to be direct and proximate and that it could be less immediate. It was therefore, held that the construction of the expression “arising out of the use of a Motor Vehicle” enlarged the field of protection made available to the victims of an accident and was in consonance with the beneficial object underlying the enactment. 9. It was therefore, held that the construction of the expression “arising out of the use of a Motor Vehicle” enlarged the field of protection made available to the victims of an accident and was in consonance with the beneficial object underlying the enactment. 9. The Apex Court in the aforementioned Judgment further held in Para (25) as under: “In our opinion, the word “use” has a wider connotation to cover the period when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary and the use of a vehicle does not cease on account of the vehicle having been rendered immobile on account of a break-down or mechanical defect or accident. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petrol tanker was not in the use at the time when it was lying on its side after the collision with the truck.” 10. The facts which were before the Apex Court in Patil’s case were that a collision had taken place between a petrol tanker and a tractor on the national highway due to which the tanker turned turtle leading to leakage of the petroleum products which it was carrying. Subsequently there was an explosion after a gap of approximately four hours leading to injuries to the people who had gathered around on the site of accident one of whom later succumbed to the injuries. The claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the explosion was not an accident arising out of the use of the petrol tanker. The view of the Tribunal was not upheld by the High Court which took a view that the use of the motor vehicle could not be confined to the period when it was in motion and that it could still be said to be in use while it was stationary. 11. Testing the ratio of the aforementioned Judgment on the facts of the present case it can be seen that there was certainly a connection between the death of the deceased and use of the motor vehicle in the present case. Admittedly there is evidence on record which would show that the deceased had been engaged by respondent no. 6, with the vehicle in question for loading of stones in the vehicle in his Stone Quarry. Admittedly there is evidence on record which would show that the deceased had been engaged by respondent no. 6, with the vehicle in question for loading of stones in the vehicle in his Stone Quarry. It has also come on record that the deceased was in the vehicle when the stones fell on him leading to injuries and finally the death of the deceased. 12. The fact that the vehicle was stationary is immaterial. An onerous responsibility lay on the driver of the vehicle in question to be vigilant even with regard to parking of the said vehicle at a place which was safe considering that the loading operations were being conducted in a Stone Quarry, which was inherently risky. While it may be true that the driver may not be accused of over-speeding or rash driving, yet some element of negligence can certainly be imputed to the driver in as much as it was within his domain to ensure that he should park the vehicle for loading operations at a place which was safe for anybody connected with the loading operation which was to be undertaken on his vehicle. A situation in which death occurs due to loading operations on a stationary vehicle in a Stone Quarry is no different from a death occurring due to shooting stones if the vehicle were in motion through the Stone Quarry. There is thus, a direct connection between the death of the deceased labourer and the operation of the vehicle in question. 13. In view of the above, I cannot persuade myself to take a view different from the one taken by the Tribunal. The appeal is therefore, found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed.