( 1 ) THE short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the agricultural fields where the accident occurred is a public place within the meaning of section 2 (34) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 so as to fasten the liability against the insurer for the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

( 2 ) THE facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows: one Basha Khan while working in the fields of Shanker Reddy of Mudumur village sustained multiple grievous injuries in a motor accident and died while he was being shifted to hospital. The appellants herein who are the legal representatives of the deceased Basha Khan filed O. P. No. 69 of 1996 on the file of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District judge, Madanapalle seeking compensation contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-03 9228 resulting in the death of the deceased. The owner of the said lorry as well as the insurance company with whom the lorry was insured were made the respondents. Along with the claim petition, the claimants also filed I. A. No. 870 of 1996 under section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation under no fault liability. The said petition was contested by respondent no. 2 insurance company. The respondent no. 1, owner remained ex pane.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 2 insurance company raised a specific plea in the counter that the place where the accident occurred is not a public place as defined under section 2 (34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act ), and, therefore, in terms of section 147 (1) (b) (i) of the Act, the liability cannot be fastened against the insurance company.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal below settled the following issues for trial in I. A. No. 870 of 1996: (1) Whether the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased? (2) Whether the accident took place in a public place? (3) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so, from whom and to what amount? (4) To what relief?

( 5 ) BEFORE the Tribunal below the claimant no. 1 examined himself as PW 1, and got marked Exhs. A-l and A-2 documents to substantiate the claim under no fault liability. On behalf of the respondents none was examined, however, Exh. B-l policy was marked. The Tribunal below on appreciation of evidence on record held on issue no. 1 that the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased. On issue No. 2 it has been held that the accident took place in the fields of Shanker Reddy, which is not a public place and, therefore, the respondent no. 2 insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, Tribunal below held that the claimants are entitled for statutory sum of Rs. 50,000 under no fault liability, however, the respondent No. 1 owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay the same together with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realisation.

( 6 ) THE said order of the Tribunal below dated 11. 3. 1997, dismissing LA. No. 870 of 1996 as against the insurance company, is questioned in this appeal by claimants.

( 7 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

( 8 ) THE only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the finding of the Tribunal below that the place where the accident occurred is not a public place within the meaning of section 2 (34) of the Act is unsustainable. It is further contended that the order under appeal absolving the insurance company from the liability is erroneous.

( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents while supporting the order under appeal submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal below has rightly held that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and that the order under appeal does not warrant any interference.

( 10 ) SECTION 147 (1) of the Act, to the extent it