IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act to determine the liability of the insurance company in a workmen's compensation case.

JUDGMENT :

This is an appeal filed by the insurance company aggrieved by the Award dated 21.02.2012 passed in W.C.A.No.23/2007 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mandya.

2. The claim petition was filed under Section 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-for the death of the workmen who was employed as Loader & Unloader in the Tractor Trailer belonging to the first respondent, that occurred on 30.06.2003. The Court below considering the evidence on record had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.3,20,355/-.

3. It is the case of the claimant that the deceased was working in the capacity of loader & un loader under the first respondent in the Tractor Trailer. On 30.06.2003, as per the instruction of the first respondent, the deceased workman loaded the sugarcane belonging to Javare Gowda i.e., the father of the deceased and taking to Jaggery unit and unloaded the sugarcane in the alemane and while returning, the driver of the tractor instead of driving the tractor in the road drive, drove the vehicle on the bunds of the sugarcane field in a rash and negligent manner. Due to this, the loader sitting on the tractor fell down and the tractor wheel ran over him. As a result of this, the worker sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the accident had taken in a private place but not in a public place. In such event, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is also submitted that the policy is issued for the purpose of using the vehicle for agricultural purpose by the owner of the vehicle, whereas in this case, the sugarcane which belongs to claimant No.2 was taken to the Jaggery unit and he submits that as it is used for hire and reward which is contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy, even on that count also, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. He had invited the attention of the Court to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and relying on 147 (1) and (2) submits that the insurance company is only liable to pay the compensation, if the accident caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. It is submitted that as the accident had taken place not in a public place but in a private place, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. He submits that even proviso (2) of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act also states that against the death or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Then, he has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and submits that if the vehicle is used for hire or reward, where the vehicle is directly under the contract of the insurance is not covered by permit to claim for hire or reward, even in that case also, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act and submits that when it comes to Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, where it mentions about the bodily injuries to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicle or damages to any property or third party so arising or both, there the public place is conspicuously not present, as it is the intention of the Legislature that the Claims Tribunal has got the jurisdiction to decide the same and grant compensation against the owner, but as far as the insurance liability is concerned, the breach of the same is under Sections 147 and 149 where the public place is categorically mentioned. Relying on these provisions, learned counsel submits that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent claimant submits that in the evidence, it is categorically mentioned that the owner of the vehicle had purchased the sugarcane from the father of the dece