Mohinder Pal, J.

1. The present Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 699/2002 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Jamnagar claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of death of three years old child, who came under Truck No. GJ.10.C.9736.

2. Aggrieved by this award, the Insurance Company has come in an Appeal.

3. The brief facts of this case are that on 22.07.2002, the son of the claimant - Jaypal Hanubha Jadeja aged about three years was playing in the compound of his residential house situated at Moti Khavdi. The compound of the premises was having a slope on which a Tractor No. GJ.10.C.9736 was parked. At that time, as no stone etc. was kept in front of the tyres of the tractor, and as the tractor was parked in such a manner, it suddenly started moving and collided against the son - Jaypal who was playing in front of the Truck. As a result of this, Jay received serious injuries. Thereafter, he was taken to Reliance Hospital and was rushed to GG Hospital at Jamnagar for further treatment. However, Jaypal died on account of the injuries received.

4. The claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- against the appellant Insurance Company. Aggrieved by this decision, the present Appeal has been preferred.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has argued that the accident has taken place within the compound wall of the house of the claimants. This compound wall was a private place and it did not have any public access. Further, the accident has taken place because the daughter of the claimant had fidgeted with the tractor, as a result of which the tractor came into motion and crushed Jaypal. Under these circumstances, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. In support of this argument, he has relied upon the decision passed by this Court in the case of Jasuben Manji Hirani v. Hirani Shamji Kesara and Others in First Appeal No. 3503/2012 and has also relied upon another decision passed by this Court in the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rabari Gandu Punja and Others reported in 1982 A.C.J. 202.

6. Nobody has put in an appearance on behalf of the respondents. This Court has considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellant. There is no dispute regarding insurance policy issued in favour of the tractor involved in the accident. Further, it can be seen that the insurance company can be held liable only in a case where an accident has taken place in a public place or a public road. In the present case, the tractor was within the compound of the claimants which was for private use and the public had no access to these space. Otherwise also, the accident had taken place because the minor daughter of the claimant was seated on the driver seat and appeared to have pushed a certain lever which brought the tractor into motion and hit the deceased - Jaypal. Otherwise also the claimant was negligent in parking the tractor in such a way that it did not have any bricks in front of the tyres to prevent it from coming into motion. This Court while deciding the aforementioned case in the case of Jasuben Manji Hirani v. Hirani Shamji Kesara and Others, held as under :-

"5. I have heard the submissions made by both the counsels. There is no dispute regarding insurance policy issued in favour of the Tractor involved in the accident. However, the dispute remains whether the Insurance Company can be fastened with the liability in a case where accident has taken place in the courtyard of the appellant and that too because of negligence of the Tractor driver who seems to be related of the appellant. In para No. 13 to 17 of the judgment of the Tribunal has discussed this aspect, which is reproduced as under:

13. The Learned Advocate for the opponent No. 3 has submitted that as per Section 1