ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 8-7-1992 in o. P. No. 429 of 1991 on the file of the Chairman (Addl- Dist. Judge), Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddapah.

( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the said O. P. are that on 24-7-1991 at about 4-00 p. m. the deceased, Amjad Pasha, driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-3/t-9090 had taken the lorry to the Indian Cement Factory limited, Chilamakur and kept the lorry in the lorry stand in front of the factory and while he was sleeping infront of his lorry, at about 10-00 p. m. a lorry bearing No. APG-7569 belonging to the first respondent, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, ran over the deceased and caused his death. The claimants are the widow of the deceased Sk. Raheemunnisa, 2nd and 3rd claimants Nayuma and A. Basha are daughter and son and Smt. Kairunbi the mother of the deceased. The claimants stated that the deceased was their sole bread winner and was aged about 30 years and hale and healthy at the time of accident. Therefore, they claimed a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- by way of compensation for the loss of dependency, estate and non-pecuniary damages.

( 3 ) THE owner of the vehicle, first respondent remained ex parte and the second respondent-Insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident filed their counter stating that the accident was occurred at the lorry stand of Indian cement Factory Limited, which is a private place and so the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further contended that the accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased, that even otherwise, the claimants have to prove that the driver of the lorry had caused the accident and that he had a valid driving licence. The vehicle involved in the accident was insured with this respondent and the policy was in force. They further stated that the claim made by the claimants is exorbitant and excessive and liable to be rejected.

( 4 ) BASED on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal framed as many as seven issues dnd marked Exs. A-1 to A-6 and examined P. W-1 the widow of the deceased and PW-2, the cleaner of the lorry on which the deceased was working as driver, None were examined on behalf of the respondents and no documents were also marked.

( 5 ) BASED on the oral and documentary evidence and considering the contention of the respondents-Insurance Company that the accident tookplace within the premises of the Indian Cement Factory, which is a private place and as such the company is not liable to pay the compensation and after scrutiny of the judgment in Life insurance Corporation of India vs. Karthvani and others (AIR 1976 Orissa 21), United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Roop kanwar and others (1991 ACJ 74 (Rajasthan) and Seshidra Devi vs. Rama Narayana satya Narayana and others (1991 ACJ 695: Madhya Pradesh), the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, as the right of admission is reserved by the owner of the factory and after taking permission one has to enter into the premises of the factory, as it was not a public place as defined under section 2 (24) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 6 ) AFTER scrutiny of the above said judgments and appreciation of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the second respondent, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident is said to have taken place in the lorry stand in front of the factory, so the judgments referred to above are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Tribunal further observed that PW-2, cleaner stated that it was 20 yards away from the factory gate. In the inquest report, Ex. A-2. it is mentioned that the accident took place in front of the factory in the place where the lorries are stationed, i. e. , lorry stand. Therefore, as it was a lorry stand, every lorry has a right to access to the place. In other words, the lorry drivers and lorry cleaners have ri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document