Back
2002 Supreme(AP) 728
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.BIKSHAPATHY
Pinnaboyina Chittamma - Appellant
Versus
B.Narasingarao - Respondent
Decided On : 06-20-02
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 2, 2(34), 2(24), 95 - Madras City Police act - Section 75 - Public Gaming Act - Section 13 - Madras Gaming Act - Section 12 - Bengal Public gambling Act - Gambling Act - Sections 12, 15 - Calcutta Municipal Act - Section 229 - Public Order Act, 1936 - Sections 5 and 9(1) - Accidents Claims - Deceased - Challenging - Claim for Compemsation - Driver of lorry bearing registration No - On lorry went to premises of Coromandel Fertilisers Limited to load gypsum - Lorry entered into premises of factory after obtaining necessary permission - It was parked at appropriate parking place and driver was with vehicle - While so a cleaner of another lorry bearing registration No while taking reverse of vehicle dashed against gangaiah on account of which he died - Consequently legal representatives of deceased laid a claim for compensation - Learned counsel would also submit that contention of insurance company that cleaner of offending vehicle has caused accident and insurance company is not liable is also not sustainable and that as per judgment of supreme Court ACJ (SC) even though vehicle was driven by unauthorized person owner and insurer of vehicle are liable for payment of compensation - When once entrustment of driver was established subsequent changes would not absolve owner and insurance company of the liability - Other cases to which reference may be made in case In AIR Mad where (as he then was) has reviewed entire case-law and observed thus it is unnecessary to multiply decisions on this point - Principle deducible from all these decisions is that in order to constitute a public place it is not necessary that place should be a public property but if it is a private property it must be proved that not only public could have access to it but it is a place to which members of the public in fact resort - All that prosecution has proved in this case is that accused were seen playing in a compound by side of temple – Held, As per expression public place it has to be construed as a place where public have an access - As held in various decisions it is not necessary whether access is by means of permission or unrestricted entry - Learned single Judge of this court in insurance Co Ltd ACJ 60 took same view as that of Bombay Full bench decision - In that case driver of lorry had taken lorry to cement Factory Limited and kept lorry in the lorry stand and he was sleeping in front of lorry - While so another lorry driven in a rash and negligent manner ran over deceased and caused death - Since accident had taken place within compound of cement Factory Ltd stand was taken by insurance company that it is not liable for payment of compensation - Owner of vehicle and insurance company are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation amount - Compensation amount shall be deposited within a period of two months from date of receipt of a copy of this order - On such deposit claimants are entitled to receive same equally – Petition Allowed.
( 1 ) THE appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal-II, Additional District Judge, visakhapatnam, in O. P No. 23 of 1986 dated 30. 10. 1991.
( 2 ) AN important issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is the interpretation of the expression public place .
( 3 ) ONE Gangaiah was the driver of the lorry bearing registration No. ABK 8035. On 28. 8. 1985, the lorry went to the premises of Coromandel Fertilisers Limited, visakhapatnam to load gypsum. The lorry entered into the premises of the factory after obtaining the necessary permission. It was parked at the appropriate parking place and the driver was with the vehicle. While so, a cleaner of another lorry bearing registration No. ATV 3438 while taking reverse of the vehicle dashed against gangaiah on account of which he died. Consequently, the legal representatives of the deceased laid a claim for compensation. The Tribunal found that the accident had not taken place in a public place and absolved the insurance company of the liability and mulcted the liability on the owner of the vehicle by an order dated 30. 10. 1991. The compensation was computed at Rs. 93,600. Not satisfied with the compensation and not making the insurance company liable, the present appeal has been filed.
( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the finding of the tribunal that the accident had not occurred in a public place is absolutely misconceived and the Tribunal has not properly considered this issue with reference to the definition contained in section 2 (34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the decisions of this court. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Rabari gandu Punja, 1982 ACJ 202 (Gujarat), which was later dissented by the same high Court in a subsequent decision in prakash Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. Krishna singh Sata Singh, 1993 ACJ 218 (Gujarat ). Learned counsel would also submit that the contention of the insurance company that the cleaner of the offending vehicle has caused the accident and the insurance company is not liable is also not sustainable and that as per the judgment of the supreme Court in Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, 1996 ACJ 1044 (SC), even though the vehicle was driven by the unauthorized person, the owner and the insurer of the vehicle are liable for payment of compensation. When once entrustment of the driver was established, the subsequent changes would not absolve the owner and the insurance company of the liability.
( 5 ) BEFORE considering the quantum of compensation, it is necessary to consider whether the accident has occurred in a public place so as to deny the liability on the part of the insurance company.
( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the entry into the Coromandel Fertilisers were restricted and it is also in evidence that the lorry driven by the deceased was permitted to enter inside and only after entry into the factory premises, the accident had taken place. The definition of public place as contained in section 2 (34) of the Motor vehicles Act,. 1988 reads thus:" public place means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage. "
( 7 ) THE expression public place was interpreted in number of cases with reference to the aims and objects of the concerned statute. In olden days, this expression came to be considered mostly in Gaming Act.
( 8 ) IN Reg. v. Wellard, (1884) 14 QBD 63, Lord Coleridge, C. J. , enunciated the principle that a place is a public place though it is private property when it is shown that the public are in the habit of resorting to the place, and no one prevented them from so resorting to it. The prisoner was convicted of indecently exposing his person to
