JUDGMENT - P.B. SAWANT, J.:---The question referred to us by the Division Bench is as follows :---

"Whether a private road or a private place to which the public have a permissive access would be the 'public place' within the meaning of section 2(24) as well as used in section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939?"

The facts which give rise to the question may briefly be stated for the correct appreciation of the question as well as the answer that we propose to give. The deceased Pradeep alias Pradyumna Fulshankar Kapta was working as a Sales Engineer in a company called W.G. Forge and Allied Industries Ltd., Thane. At the relevant time he was on duty at Pune and was looking after the work entrusted to him by the company. As a part of his duty, he was required to visit various factories and on February 27, 1981 he visited the factory of the second appellant, namely Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd., situated at Pimpri-Pune, herein after referred to as "TELCO". He had gone to the factory on his scooter. There he met one Niloba Rane and after finishing their work both of them left the factory-building with the deceased driving the scooter and Rane on its pillion seat. They moved from Block Nos. 'B' and ''E' to reach the main gate of the factory compound. A truck belonging to appellant No. 2 and driven by appellant No. 1 and which was going ahead of the deceased's scooter took a sudden 'U' turn with the result that the deceased who was riding the scooter on the right side of the truck was knocked down, and suffered injuries due to the impact. He was immediately removed to the dispensary of the factory which was also in the factory compound. However, before any medical help could be given, he succumbed to his injuries. The claimants, i.e. respondents 2 and 3 thereafter filed the present application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'). The claim was registered by the first respondent insurance company, among other things on the ground that where the accident took place being within the compound of the insured, i.e. the second appellant, it was not a "public place" within the meaning of section 95 of the Act and therefore the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. This contention was upheld by the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the claim against the insurance company but granted compensation of Rs. 1 lakh together with interest at 9% per annum jointly only against appellants 1 2, i.e. the driver of the truck and the TELCO. Being agreed by the decision, the appellants preferred the present appeal.

2. When the appeal came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court the Division Bench by its decision and order dated October 3, 1985 referred the matter to a Full Bench on the question indicated at the very outset. That is how the matter comes up before us for decision.

3. Before we answer the legal question, it is necessary to refer to the relevant evidence with regard to the place where the accident occurred. Admittedly the second appellant company has a huge establishment at the place concerned and in the compound of the establishment in addition to various structures there are open spaces and roads for the passage of traffic. The vehicles of all sorts are piled on the said roads. In addition to the large number of employees there is a constant traffic of outsiders visiting the factory for various purposes. The testimony of Sharad Kumar Moreshwar Wadekar, senior security officer of the second appellant company on this point reads as follows :

"The width of the road at the place of accident is about 45 metres with a road divider in the centre. There is a traffic near by the place of accident but no road leading to the left of the island. The building of the computer division is on the left side of the road. The exit of the 'D' Block is not on the main road. Similarly the exit of the 'E' block is also not opening on the main road. Block '

Click Here to Read the rest of this document