Back
1992 Supreme(Guj) 113
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :K.G.Shah, N.B.PATEL
PRAKASH CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
KRISHNASINGH SATASINGH KAANIYARA - Respondent
First Appeal 313 of 1991
Decided On : 04/28/1992
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act 1939 – Section 110 A – Automobile collision occurred within the Indian Petrochemicals Limited campus near Baroda collision two vehicles were involved. One was a scooter bearing registration of the ownership of Respondent Singh and the same at the time of collision was driven by that Respondent other vehicle was an ambassador car bearing registration which belonged to the appellant herein and was being driven by the driver of the appellant that ambassador car certain persons were travelling. As a result of the accident Respondent suffered some injuries. He sustained a fracture of the left femur bone and he also sustained some other injuries. Some of the passengers travelling in that ambassador car also sustained some injuries car was also damaged; so also was the scooter damaged Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Vadodara five compensation cases under Section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 came to be filed. Three of those claim petitions were filed by the passengers travelling in the motor car who claimed compensation in respect of personal injuries sustained by them. The fourth claim petition was filed by the present appellant against the present Respondent No. 1 claiming compensation in respect of the damage to his car. However in the present appeal we are not concerned with these four claim cases –Held, AS said above in para 10 of the judgment of the Full Bench the learned Judges of the Full Bench laid down the objects underlying Chapter VIII court are in full agreement with whatever has been said in paragraph 10 of that judgment That being so we need not repeat everything contained therein submitted that when the definition of the expression public place employs the expression right of access what is meant is an absolute right of public to have access to a place and once that right is in any manner restricted the concerned place would not come within the purview of the expression public place court are not in a position to accept this submission of Mr. Gandhi One has to remember that we are concerned with an Act which was brought in the statute book in 1939 At that time there must not have been in this country such large complexes as IPCL and the like or at least there must not have been such large complexes in such large number as we find today With the increase in industrialisation and with the increase in commercialisation in this Country such big establishments are fast coming up and of necessity quite a large number of members of the public are day in and day out required to enter the campus of such large establishments May be for security reason or for some other reason the establishments might regulate the entry of public into their premises – Appeal partly allowed.
( 1 ) AT 1. 30 p. m. on 21/07/1982 an automobile collision occurred within the Indian Petrochemicals Limited (IPCL for short) campus near Baroda. In the collision two vehicles were involved. One was a scooter bearing registration No. BHC 1206 of the ownership of Respondent No. 1 Singh Sata Singh and the same at the time of collision was driven by that Respondent No. 1. The other vehicle was an ambassador car bearing registration No. GTH 5198 which belonged to the appellant herein and was being driven by the driver of the appellant. In that ambassador car certain persons were travelling. As a result of the accident Respondent No. 1 suffered some injuries. He sustained a fracture of the left femur bone and he also sustained some other injuries. Some of the passengers travelling in that ambassador car also sustained some injuries. The car was also damaged; so also was the scooter damaged.
( 2 ) BEFORE the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Vadodara five compensation cases under Section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (for short the Act) came to be filed. Three of those claim petitions were filed by the passengers travelling in the motor car who claimed compensation in respect of personal injuries sustained by them. The fourth claim petition was filed by the present appellant against the present Respondent No. 1 claiming compensation in respect of the damage to his car. However in the present appeal we are not concerned with these four claim cases. The fifth claim was laid by the present Respondent No. 1 against the present appellant its driver and the Insurance Company-Respondent No. 2 with which at the time of the accident the motor car in question was insured for third party risk. Respondent No. 1 in his claim petition laid a claim for compensation in the sum of Rs. 70 0 on the allegation that the accident occurred solely because of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the motor car in driving the car. Respondent No. 1 contended that as a result of the accident he sustained fracture and some other injuries and he was required to take long-term treatment. He has been left with permanent partial disability. His earning capacity has decreased. He was required to spend large sums of money on treatment etc.
( 3 ) ALL the aforesaid five compensation cases came to be consolidated by the Tribunal
( 4 ) AS said above we are not concerned in this appeal with the other four claim cases Therefore we will confine our attention to the claim petition filed by Respondent No. 1
( 5 ) THE driver of the ambassador car did not enter appearance though duly served The present appellant the owner of the car contended that the accident occurred solely of rashness and negligence on the part of Respondent No. 1 the scooterist. The insurer of the Ambassador car being Respondent No 2 inter alia contended that it is not responsible to satisfy the judgment and award that may be passed in the case on the ground that the place where the accident occurred was not a public place
( 6 ) THE learned Member of the Tribunal on evidence found that both the scooterist as also the car driver were equally guilty of negligence in the matter of driving their respective vehicles and their share of the blame was equal on the question of quantum of compensation the Tribunal worked out Rs. 15 0 as damaged which normally would be payable to Respondent No. 1 under the head of pain shock and suffering. Similarly Rs. 2 0 was worked out under the head of expenses for medical treatment and Rs. 1000. 00 was worked out as expenses for special diet. Respondent No. 1 was at the time of the accident serving in Gujarat Refinery as an Electrical Engineer and was getting the total emoluments of the order of Rs. 2 600 per month The Tribunal found that Respondent No. 1 could not attend to his duties for three months therefore he lost the earning to the tune of Rs. 7 800 The Tribunal also found Respondent No. 1 must have been required to spend about Rs. 600.
