N.N.MITHAL, J. - (1.) UNION of India has come up in appeal against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants. According to the claimants two cyclists were going in front of the Military truck belonging to the appellant which hit one of the cyclists as a result of which that cycle collided with the other cycle on which the deceased was riding on the pillion. As a result of this collision the pillion driver sustained fatal injuries hence the claimants filed the petition claiming rupees one lac as compensation.
(2.) SRI Shekhar Srivastava has raised only one question before the Court in support of this appeal. According to him there was no collision between the truck and the cycle on which the deceased was travelling. Since the truck had only hit the other cyclist the deceased did not meet his death due to an accident caused by use of the motor vehicle belonging to the appellant. Under Section 110-A claim for compensation in respect of the accident involving the death or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicle or damages to any property to a third party shall lie before the Claims Tribunal. Before this section can apply what is necessary is to examine whether death of or bodily injury to a person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. The expression 'arising out of the use of motor vehicle' is much wider than the term 'as a result of the use of motor vehicle'. It is true that the death in the present case had not resulted from the use of motor vehicle but it certainly resulted from an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. It is difficult to say that the cause of death was too remote since the truck had only hit the other cycle. As a matter of fact collision of the truck with other cycle was the immediate and proximate cause of that cycle hitting the cycle on which the deceased was riding and the two cannot be said to be unconnected or remote. In the circumstances, the submission made by the learned Counsel cannot be accepted. It must consequently be held that the deceased Biswanath died as a result of the accident arising out of use of the truck in question.
(3.) THE learned Counsel also vainly argued that the amount of com pensation awarded was too high and excessive. Here also it is difficult to agree. The deceased was 35 years of age and was in Government Service. He was admittedly getting Rs. 495-45 P. as salary, Rs. 260/- being his basic pay. Ordinarily as a Government servant he would have continued in service till the age of 55 years and there after he would have been entitled to pensionary benefits also. The Court below has taken these into account to arrive at a figure of Rs. 1,08,900/- which has been slashed by more than 50% to arrive at the final compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/-. In my opinion the award cannot be said to be excessive.;