SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(AP) 63

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.A.CHOUDHARY
Lanka Sarmma - Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Singh - Respondent
Decided On : 02-22-83

The definition of "public place" in Section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act includes private places to which the public has access, such as factory premises or construction sites.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 95 - INSURANCE - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - EXTENT OF - ACCIDENT OCCURRING IN A PRIVATE PLACE - WHETHER COVERED BY INSURANCE POLICY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 2(24) OF THE ACT.

Fact of the Case:

A lorry driver and owner were held liable for the death of a cooly who was working on the lorry when it turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving. The insurance company denied liability on the ground that the accident did not occur in a public place.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay damages to the claimant. It interpreted Section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act to include private places to which the public has access, such as factory premises or construction sites. The court also held that the reference to the Workmen's Compensation Act in Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act indicated that third-party insurance should cover accidents that occur in the course of employment, even if they occur on private property.

Issues: Whether the insurance company was liable to pay damages to the claimant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay damages to the claimant because: * The definition of "public place" in Section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act includes private places to which the public has access, such as factory premises or construction sites. * The reference to the Workmen's Compensation Act in Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act indicates that third-party insurance should cover accidents that occur in the course of employment, even if they occur on private property.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and increased the amount of compensation awarded from Rs. 16,200.00 to Rs. 18,000.00.

P. A. CHOUDHARY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the claimant in O. P. No. 346 of 1978 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajahmundry, complaining against an order of compensation passed by it limiting the liability only to the respondents 1 and 2, who are the driver and the owner respectively, o the lorry and holding the third respondent, the Original Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad, free from the obligation to meet the claim under the award.

( 2 ) ONE Lanka Viswanatham, aged 18 years, was working as a cooly earning Rs. 10. 00 to Rs. 12. 00 per day. The said Viswanatham met his premature death on 28-1276 while working as a cooly on the lorry A. A. T. 2338 owned by the second respondent herein. On 28-12-76 the said Viswanatham was hired along with other coolies for the purpose of loading and unloading stones from the Hindustan Quarry to the coffer dam on the Godavary at Dowleswaram. While the lorry was proceedings to the coffer dam site, it turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving, killing Viswanatham. Viswamanthams mother had filed the above O. P. 346 of 1978 claiming compensation of Rs. 30,000. 00 against the lorry driver as well as the owner and the Insurance Company. The driver and the owner remained ex parte and did not contest the claim. The third respondent insurance company, which found acceptance with the lower tribunal and against which this present appeal has been filed, is the plea that the insurance company is not liable on the ground that the accident did not occur in a Public Place. The lower Court accepting that plea said, "the alleged accident has taken place beyond carriage way at coffer dam, which is the property of the Godavary barrage private promise and as per provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 3rd party insurance cover did not cover such an accident. "

( 3 ) UNDER S. 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, taking a policy of insurance covering third party risk is compulsory. That policy is statutory required to cover any liability which may be incurred by the insured in respect of the death or bodily injury of any person or damage to any property of third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a Public Place. This Section has been interpreted by the lower tribunal as excluding the liability of the insurance company in this case, on the reasoning that the death was not caused by the use of the vehicle in a Public Place.

( 4 ) THE insurance company contends that the insurance cover required to be taken by S. 95 (1) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, cannot be spread to cover the liability arising out of an accident in the course of the use of a motor vehicle in any place other than a public place Section 95 (1) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act which is to be found in Chapter VIII of that Act reads thus :-"against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. "it is clear that S. 95 of the Act limits liability to an accident in the course of the use of the motor vehicle in a public place. What then is meant by the Statute when it speaks of the public place. According to the insurance company, a public place is one to which the public as such have a right of access. The argument of the insurance company is that a private place to which the general public is not admitted as a matter of right, cannot be called a public place and there can be no insurance liability fastened to the insurance policy under the Act with respect to an accident that occurred in such a private place.

( 5 ) THE significance of these submissions made by the insurance company cannot be exaggerated. These submissions amount to saying that the third party insurance made compulsory by a Parliamentary law should largely fail to benefit a class of people, like coolies who most need such protection. It is, therefore










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top