High Court Of Calcutta
P. K. SAMANTA, TAPAN KUMAR DUTT
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
ABDUL KHAN - Respondent
F. M. A. 516 Of 2005
Decided On : 08/05/2005
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 147(1)(B)(I) - PUBLIC PLACE - INTERPRETATION - ACCIDENT OCCURRING INSIDE RAILWAY SIDING - WHETHER PUBLIC PLACE - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY.
Fact of the Case:
A minor child was killed in an accident caused by a lorry. The parents of the deceased filed a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,54,500 to the claimants. The insurance company challenged the award on the ground that the accident occurred inside the Ultadanga Railway siding, which was not a public place, and hence it was not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Ultadanga Railway siding was a public place as the public had a right of access to it. The court relied on the definition of 'public place' in Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which includes any place to which the public have a right of access. The court also referred to several judgments of other High Courts which held that any place where the public has access, even if the entry is regulated or by permission, would come within the purview of a public place.
Issues: Whether the accident occurred inside the Ultadanga Railway siding, which was not a public place, and hence the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Ultadanga Railway siding was a public place as the public had a right of access to it. The court relied on the definition of 'public place' in Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which includes any place to which the public have a right of access. The court also referred to several judgments of other High Courts which held that any place where the public has access, even if the entry is regulated or by permission, would come within the purview of a public place.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and directed the insurance company to pay the entire awarded amount of Rs. 1,54,500, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the award till payment.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is by appellant insurance company against the judgment and award passed in the claim case being M. A. C. C. No. 265 of 1995 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 2nd court of the Additional District Judge at alipore. The aforesaid claim case arose out of an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the parents of the deceased victim who met with the unfortunate accident on 2. 7. 1995 caused by the offending vehicle being lorry no. WBK 1463.
( 2 ) THE learned Claims Tribunal disposed of the same by awarding a total sum of Rs. 1,54,500 by way of compensation to the claimants, parents, on the death of their minor child in the said accident.
( 3 ) IN this appeal, the appellant insurance company has not disputed the involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident causing the death of the minor. It is not in dispute in this appeal that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver. The insurance cover of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident has also not been disputed by appellant insurance company.
( 4 ) ACCIDENT occurred as per the F. I. R. at or about the Ultadanga Railway siding. In this appeal, on behalf of the appellant insurance company, upon reference to the provisions of section 147 (1) (b) (i) it has been contended that from the materials on record it can be gathered that the said accident occurred almost inside the Ultadanga railway siding and as such the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle for the amount awarded by the learned Claims tribunal as the place inside the Railway siding is not a public place.
( 5 ) TO deal with the aforesaid question it is necessary to go into the details as to the actual place of occurrence of the accident as appearing from the evidence of the parties and the materials on record. In this case, appellant insurance company has not examined any witness. It has not made any attempt to examine the driver of offending vehicle. On the contrary, on behalf of the claimant-respondent, two witnesses have been examined, one of which, namely, PW 2, was the eyewitness to the said accident. In his cross-examination he has categorically stated that accident occurred in front of him. He has further stated in his cross-examination that the victim was standing outside the railway yard. The offending vehicle went to the East Canal Road after knocking down the deceased. This part of deposition of the PW 2 could not be shaken by the appellant insurance company. Only suggestion which was given to the said PW 2 by the appellant insurance company was that he did not see the occurrence of the accident inside the Ultadanga Railway siding.
( 6 ) THAT apart, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Ultadanga Railway siding is not a public place. No evidence has also been led by the appellant insurance company to establish that the public has no access and/or right of entry into the ultadanga Railway siding or that the same is absolutely a protected area wherein the general public cannot have any access by any means whatsoever. In this connection, reference may be made to the definition of a public place as given in section 2 (34) of the aforesaid Act which reads as under:" 'public place' means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage;"this definition clearly implies that a public place includes any other place where the public have a right of access. In this case, there being no material whatsoever to establish that the public did not have any right of access to the Ultadanga Railway siding, it cannot be said, only because the area is Ultadanga Railway siding, it should be treated as a place not falling within the definition of public place. In this conn
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.