in the process of stealing was taken as an accidental act in the act of stealing the auto-rickshaw. The death was, therefore, taken to be an accident in the process of committing the theft and the claimants were entitled to compensation. The expression “use of the motor vehicle” itself has been given an expansive interpretation by Courts and even an act of entering entering into bus by a person and trying to snatch a bag from a passenger, on resistance, when the passenger was killed, it was held by the Patna High Court that the death arose out of an accident by the use of a motor cycle in Ranju Devi and others Vs. Pawan Kumar Patwari and others 2004 1 ACJ 230 . In Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dongkholam 2007 ACJ 1973 , the driver of the vehicle had been fore-warned not to proceed ahead, on an apprehension that miscreants were setting up to kill indiscriminately. The driver disregarded the warning and went ahead and 30 passengers in the bus were killed by miscreants. It was held that the claims were sustainable as motor accidents though it was brazen act of terrorism. It was observed that the death was a sudden unforeseen occurrence for the victims. It may be noticed that the perception to the person killed in the accident as an unforeseen event itself was taken to be sufficient to the maintainability of the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Anita 2007 ACJ 1357 , the driver of the vehicle was taken away to an isolated spot by five associates who had hired the taxi and did away with him. The Allahabad High Court held that the claim was maintainable. In Bangalore Metropolitan Corporation Vs. Raman
