A place is a public place within the meaning of Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act if the public has a right of access to it, even if it is a private property.

ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8. 7. 1992 in O. P. No. 429 of 1991 on the file of the Chairman (Addl. District judge), Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, cuddapah.

( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the said O. P. are that on 24. 7. 91 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 Ltd. , Chilamakur and kept the lorry in the lorry stand in front of the factory and while he was sleeping in front of his lorry, at about 10. 00 p. m. a lorry bearing No. APG 7569 belonging to the respondent No. 1, 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 rahee-munnisa, claimant Nos. 2 and 3 Nayuma and A. Basha are daughter and son and kairunbi, the mother of the deceased. The claimants stated that the deceased was their sole breadwinner and was aged about 30 years and hale and hearty 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, respondent no. 1, remained expane and the respondent No. 2, insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident filed its counter stating that the accident had occurred at the lorry stand of Indian Cement Factory Ltd. , 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 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. It 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 and marked Exhs. A - 1 to a-6 and examined widow of the deceased, pw 1, and the cleaner of the lorry, PW 2, 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 respondent insurance company that the accident took place 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 L. I. C. of India v. Karthyani, 1975 ACJ 226 (Orissa); united India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Roop kanwar, 1991 ACJ 74 (Rajasthan) and sahodra Devi v. Ramnarayan Satyanarayan, 1991 ACJ 695 (MP), 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 (34) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 6 ) AFTER scrutiny of the above said judgments and appreciation of the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, 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, Exh. 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 right to access and so it is a public place and the insurance company, respondent no. 2 is l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document