SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(Ker) 210

Judges : V.SIVARAMAN NAIR,JOHN MATHEW
CHACKO - Appellant
Versus
MARIAKUTTY - Respondent
Case No : M.F.A. No. 536 of 1981
Decided On : 07/16/1986
Advocates Appeared :
P.V. Cherian; For Appellant K. Balachandran; Ceaser V. Pilla; For Respondents

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability of the insurer in a motor accident depends on whether the accident occurred in a public place, as defined under S.2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and whether the public had unrestricted access to the place.

Headnote:

Insurance - Motor Accident - Motor Vehicles Act, S.2(24) - AIR 1967 Kerala 160, AIR 1976 Orissa 21, 1982 ACJ (Supplement) 202, 1984 ACJ 198 - The court discussed the definition of 'public place' under S.2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act and referred to various decisions to determine the liability of the insurer in accidents occurring in private but unrestricted access places. The court held that the accident occurred in a place where the public had unrestricted access, making it a public place, and therefore the insurer was liable to compensate the claimants.

Fact of the Case:

The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Tribunal completely excluding the insurer from any liability for compensation for the death of the husband of the first claimant and father of claimants 2 to 8. The accident occurred at a private quarry, and the insurance company claimed that the accident occurred at a private place and therefore the insurance policy did not cover any obligation to compensate the claimants.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accident occurred in a place where the public had unrestricted access, making it a public place, and therefore the insurer was liable to compensate the claimants.

Issues: The main issue was whether the accident occurred at a private place and if the insurer was liable to compensate the claimants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of 'public place' under S.2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act and various decisions to determine that the accident occurred in a place where the public had unrestricted access, making it a public place, and therefore the insurer was liable to compensate the claimants.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the claimants were entitled to collect the amount of Rs. 15,000/- with interest from the insurer in discharge of its obligations under the contract of Insurance. There was no order as to costs.

Judgment :-

1. The second respondent in M. V. O. P. No. 152 of 1979 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal completely excluding the insurer from any liability for payment of compensation for the death of the husband of the first claimant and father of claimants 2 to 8.

2. The accident occurred on 21-5-1976 at about 4.00 p.m. on a road leading from a Panchayat road to a quarry near Amamhlam Thakidi, Meenad Village. The accident occurred at a time when a lorry owned by the second respondent, who is the appellant before us, and which was being driven by the first respondent before the Tribunal, was being reversed from the Panchayat Road to the road leading to the quarry. The driver remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The insurer and the insured, the appellant, alone contested the claim advanced by the legal representatives of the deceased claiming an amount of Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation.

3. The insurance company in its written objection had stated that the accident occurred at a private place and therefore the insurance policy did not cover any obligation to compensate the claimants. Six witnesses were examined en behalf of the claimants and Exts. Al to A4 were marked.

4. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver. On a consideration of the materials available before it, the Tribunal granted a total amount of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation due to the legal representatives; but, confined the obligation to pay the compensation only to the owner and the driver of the vehicle for the following reasons:

"Admittedly the accident took place in a private quarry. This quarry is owned by a private person. This cannot be said to be a public place. Public have no right to enter this private property. They can enter only under a licence. Issue found against the petitioners."

The scope of this appeal is confined to this finding that the accident occurred at a private place, and therefore the insurer was not liable to compensate the claimants.

5. Counsel for the appellant referred us to the evidence of PWs. 4 to 6. The effect of such evidence was that there was no gate restricting entry into the premises of the quarry, that no permission of the owner was required for entry thereto, and that on no occasion had the right to enter been denied by the owner to the public. Counsel submits that entry into the quarry not having regulated in any manner, and in any case, no evidence in relation to such regulation having been adduced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal should not have entered a finding on the assumption that the quarry was not a public place and the public bad no right to enter this private property. An objection is also taken to the statement in the judgment to the effect that the parties admitted that the accident took place in a private quarry. Reference is also made by counsel to Ext. A3, first information report in Crime No. 71 of 1976 of Piravom Police Station, where it was stated that the accident occurred on the road to the granite quarry of Kuttappan. The same statement is seen repeated in Ext. A4, charge sheet, also.

6. Counsel appearing for the claimants asserted before us that neither the claimants nor the owner had admitted that the accident occurred at a private place. Nor had they admitted that the quarry was not a public place where licence from anybody was necessary for gaining entry into the road leading to the quarry. The finding entered by the Tribunal, in these circumstances seems to be unjustified.

7. Counsel for the appellant referred us to S.2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which defines a 'public place' for the purpose of this enactment. Public place is defined to mean, "a read, 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". He also referred us to a Dumb




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top