M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. In the instant appeal, filed by appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , one of the important questions involved for consideration is as to whether the insurance company would be liable to pay compensation in a case where accident did not tale place in a #24;public place#25; within the meaning of Sec. 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

2. The brief facts of the case which give rise to the question may briefly be stated for correct appreciation of the question as well as the answer that we propose to give. The deceased was a contractor at Tata Yodogawa Limited, Gamharia (Tayo). While deceased was looking after his contract job in the said Tayo factory a truck bearing No. BHX 7268 which was being driven in negligent manner dashed the deceased at the Tayo factory gate as a result of which the deceased succumbed to injury. The truck belongs to D.D. Transport and was insured with the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The claimants who were the widow and minor children of the deceased Lai Babu Singh filed application for compensation impleading the owner, the driver and the insurance company as opposite parties.

3. The opposite party No. 1, the owner of the truck filed show cause contending therein that claim petition is not maintainable and the same is barred by limitation and that this opposite party has no knowledge about earning of the deceased. It was further contended that the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle very carefully and was not rash and negligent and the vehicle in question was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. by virtue of valid insurance policy and, therefore, the liability, if any, for payment of compensation shall be borne by the insurance company.

4. The appellant insurance company who was the opposite party No. 3 before the Tribunal filed its show cause contending, inter alia, that neither the driver nor the owner of the vehicle informed the appellant about the accident and the criminal case instituted against them. It was further contended that the accident did take place at the factory premises of Tata Yodogawa. Sec. 2(24) of the Act defines about the public place and according to Sec. 95(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , the liability of the insurance company is to indemnify against any liability which may be incurred by person in respect of death or bodily injury arising out of use of vehicle in public place. It was contended by the appellant insurance company that the accident cannot be said to have occurred in public place and, therefore, the appellant insurance company has no statutory obligation to indemnify the opposite party, owner of the vehicle. However, the insurance company did not dispute that the vehicle was validly insured with it at the relevant time. The insurance company further took defence that the amount of compensation claimed is highly inflated and exaggerated which claimants shall not be entitled in view of the fact that the earning of the deceased was not so much as claimed by the claimants.

5. Learned Claims Tribunal (2nd Additional District Judge) after hearing the parties disposed of the claim application by the impugned judgment and award. The learned Tribunal altogether awarded Rs. 1,20,000.00 as compensation and it was held that out of total compensation a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 is payable by the appellant insurance company. Against the impugned judgment and award the appellant insurance company preferred this appeal. Learned Tribunal framed as many as six issues and while deciding issue Nos. 3 and 5 the Tribunal came to a finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. Learned Tribunal further decided issue Nos. 2 and 4 in favour of the claimants and assessed the compensation at Rs. 1,20,000.00 by applying principles of multiplier. Issue No. 6 was with regard to the question of liability of insurance company, in a case, where accident takes