The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'public place' under the Motor Vehicles Act and its application to determine the liability of the insurer in a motor accident claim.

Mohammed, J.

The subject matter of this appeal is a claim arising out of a motor accident. In the accident which took place on 5.9.1980 husband of the first respondent, Krishnan sustained grievous injuries. Later he succumbed to his injuries at the District Hospital, Trichur on 15.10.1980. The vehicle involved in the accident was a motor tractor KLM 1776 which was insured with the appellant, the United India Insurance Company. The liability of the insurer is unlimited. The wife and children of deceased Krishnan filed petition under Ss.92-A and 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.1 lakh. The tribunal after holding enquiry awarded a sum of Rs. 77.000/- as compensation. The liability to pay compensation was fixed with the appellant. The insurer being dis-satisfied with the fixation of the liability has filed this appeal against the award in M.V.O.P. No. 260 of 1986 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri.

2. After holding the enquiry, the Tribunal found that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the 9th respondent. That question is not disputed in this appeal.

3. A cross-objection has been filed on behalf of the eighth respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle. Since the appeal has been filed by the insurer, cross-objection filed by the owner of the vehicle is not maintainable in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. KunhiramanNambiar (1994 (1) KLT 956). The Division Bench rejected the prayer of the claimant therein to reconsider the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd.v. JameelaBeevi (1991 (1) KLT832). We do not see any reason to say otherwise.

4. The main point urged by the counsel for the insurer relates to the identity of the vehicle involved in the accident. The case of the claimant is that while deceased Krishnan was working in the paddy field he was knocked down by the motor tractor K.L.M. 1776 belonging to the 8th respondent and he died after forty days of the accident. The contesting respondents before the Tribunal filed separate written statements.

The eighth respondent herein, the owner of the tractor contended that his vehicle was not involved in the accident whereas the ninth respondent herein contended that he was not the driver of the tractor KLM 1776 owned by the eighth respondent and he was the driver under one C.P. George. His further case is that the tractor involved in the accident was KLP 8690 and not KLM 1776. The motor tractor KLP 8690 belonged to C.P. George, according to him. The appellant, the insurer, initially contended that the accident occurred in a private paddy field and not in a'public place'. It later filed an additional written statement on the basis of the contention raised by the driver that the motor tractor involved in the accident was not KLM 1776. Pursuant to the first information lodged by the owner of the paddy field, police charge-sheeted the second respondent in the petition before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnani as C.C. No. 27 of 1981. Ext. A3 is the said first information report and Ext. A6 is the Mahazar prepared by the police during the investigation.

5. The first point urged before us by the appellant is that the vehicle involved in the accident is not the motor tractor KLM 1776 and therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. In this context, the most relevant document available for consideration is Ext. A6 mahazar filed before the Magistrate's Court, Ponnai. That mahazar was prepared pursuant to the registration of the crime No. 93/80 by the Changaramkulam police station, under S.279 and 304(A) IPC. The sub-Inspector attached to that police station inspected the vehicle KLM 1776 involved in the accident. He had noticed the above vehicle being halted in the compound of C.P. George. He had specifically noted down the number of the vehicle as KLM 1776 and its dismantled condition. According to us, Ext. A6 is a sufficient answer