The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'public place' under the Motor Vehicles Act and the requirement of negligence in determining liability for motor accident claims.

I.M. Quddusi, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant -insurance Company against the award dated 26.08.2011 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bilaspur (CG) (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 137/2011. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.06.2009 at about 5.00 p.m. the respondent No. 6 reversed the truck bearing registration number CG04-J-1411 in a resh and negligent manner and dashed deceased Dwarika Prasad Kashyap, who was at that time working in the Motor Mechanic Garage, Bilaspur, as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries on his body. He was admitted in the CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur where he died while undergoing treatment. The claimants, being the dependents/legal representatives, have filed claim petition u/s 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short) the Act 1988') seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,86,00/- under various heads.

2. The Claims Tribunal after heating the parties in the matter and considering the material on record, partly allowed the claim petition of the claimants, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,74,000/- as compensation and fastened the appellant here in with the liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer has contented that the place where the accident had occurred i.e. motor workshop, is not a public place. He has further contended that to attract the provisions of section 166 of the Act, 1988 it is necessary to prove rash and negligence on the part of the driver, but in the instant case the claimants utterly failed to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and therefore, the claim application itself was not maintainable. Thus, the appellant insurance. Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

So far as the quantum part of the impugned award is concerned, it has been argued by the learned counsel that nothing has come on record to show that the parents were dependents upon the deceased rather it is admitted fact that they are earning form the agricultural land owned by them, but the Claims Tribunal treating the parents as dependent on the deceased, has deduced only 1/4th from the income of the deceased towards his personal and lying expenses. Therefore, the compensation assessed by the Claims Tribunal is not proper.

4. To appreciate the first contention of learned counsel for the appellant that workshop of the motor vehicles was not a public place,' we have to peruse the definition of the 'public place" given in Section 2(34) of the Act. 1988 which is quoted 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 passenger are picked up or set down by a stage carriage;

A bare reading of the above would show that a road, street, way of other place to which the public have a right of access comes within the preview of public place.'

5. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sahiba Khatun and Others (2000) ACJ 168, the Hon'ble Supreme Court repelling the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the accident occurred in the mines area, the premises owned by the Central Coal fields, therefore, the place of accident was not a public place as defined u/s 2(34) to the act, has held that 'though the entry is restricted, but the members of public have access on permission. That would not mean that it would cease to a public place, if the accident occurs on such road, the owner and insurer would be liable to pay compensation'.

6. In the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raghunath Muduli and Others, (1992) ACJ 117, it was held that the road inside the Govt. premises is a public place as the members of public have a right of access to the office. The fact that a permission or pass is required for such entry does not mean that it ceases to be a public case. If any death or inju