JUDGMENT :

P.G.M. Patil, J.

The owner of the vehicle and the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.2113 of 2011 by the Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khanapur (fort short the Tribunal ) have filed these appeals.

2. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that 02.07.2010 at about 6.30 p.m. in the public place namely on Kacha road, leading to water tank and the lands of various persons, lying towards eastern side of NH-4A, near Hebbal, the first respondent/the driver of the Tractor and Trailer bearing registration numbers KA-25/4039 and KA-25/T-267 respectively, took the same reverse in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, namely Ramchandra, causing his death. Therefore, the claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act ) claiming compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. In response to the notice, respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the Tribunal, respondent No.2 filed written statement which was adopted by the respondent No.1 they have admitted the accident, death of deceased-Ramchandra due to the accidental injuries. They also admitted that respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and the same have been insured with respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has filed written statement, he has admitted issuance of insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle and he has denied all other allegations made in the claim petition. He further contended that the alleged accident took place in a private land and police did not file charge-sheet for the offence under Section 279 of I.P.C. hence, there is no rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver in a public place. Therefore, the petition be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties Tribunal framed issues. In support of their claim petition, the claimant -petitioner No.1 was examined as PW-1 and got marked ten documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P- 10. There is no evidence on behalf of the respondents either oral or documentary.

5. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned Judgment awarding compensation amount of Rs.3,37,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 20.09.2011 till realization, which shall be deposited within one month from the date of the order. The claim petition was dismissed against respondent Nos.1 and 3 and respondent No.2-owner of the offending vehicle was ordered to deposit the compensation amount.

6. The appellant-owner of the offending vehicle being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award has filed appeal in M.F.A.No.24704 of 2013 on the ground that saddling the liability on the owner is illegal on the facts and evidence in the case and that the Tribunal has erroneously saddled liability on him. The liability ought to have been fastened against the insurer. It is proved that the accident occurred in the public place and the police have filed the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C and the Criminal Court has taken cognizance of the said offence. The Tribunal has not considered the meaning of public place as per Section 2(34) of the Act. The Tribunal is not justified in holding that the place of the accident is a private land as there was no restriction or prohibition for the public to have a right of access to the said land. It is further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effecting driving licence. The offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurer and therefore the liability has to be saddled against the insurer.

7. The claimants being dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and have filed M.F.A.No.24825 of 2013 seeking enhancement of the compensation and also to fasten the liability on the Insurance Company.

8. Heard the learned counsels for the parties