Ramachandran Nair, J.

The appeal is filed against the order of the MACT dismissing a claim petition filed by the appellant for compensation for injury sustained by him in an accident claimed by him to be road accident. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant, Senior counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and counsel appearing for the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.

2. The facts leading to the case are the following. On 4.3.1998 at around 7.30 p.m. a load of marble was being unloaded in the house premises of a person who purchased and transported marble to his house in the same truck. The appellant's case is that while unloading the marble, driver of the vehicle took it in the reverse gear which led to a marble piece falling on his left leg causing serious injury. Before the MACT, Insurance Company pleaded that accident occurred in a private premises i.e. in the compound of a house and that accident is not on account of any rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and it is an accident that took place while unloading the goods from a stationary truck. The MACT accepted the plea of the Insurance Company and held that there is no policy coverage because accident did not take place in a public place which is a requirement for liability for the Insurance Company under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Counsel for the appellant submitted that accident occurred while the vehicle was taken in the reverse direction by the driver when marble was being unloaded. However, Senior counsel for the Insurance Company brought to our notice the Police record which shows that for the accident occurred on 4.3.1998, a private complaint was filed on 23.7.1998 and pursuant to court orders, the Investigation Officer found that the accident happened when marble was unloaded from the stationary truck and based on this he contended that the case of the appellant that accident took place when the driver took the vehicle in the reverse is a bogus one. The belated complaint filed and the case put forward by the appellant that the accident took place when the vehicle was moved in the reverse direction by the driver is an absolute bogus case and is created only to ensure recovery of compensation from the Insurance Company. Needless to mention that all involved including the driver of the vehicle helped in the venture. However, we believe the findings in the final report submitted by the Police which is strengthened by the delay in filing of complaint itself and we, therefore, hold that the accident occurred while marble was unloaded from the stationary lorry.

3. Even though we have found part of the case put forward by the appellant against him, we still feel the ground on which MACT declined compensation is not tenable because MACT decided the case against the appellant only because the accident took place in a private premises i.e. in the house compound. Counsel for the appellant relied on decisions of this court in Nazeema V. Sebastian (1987(1) KLT 370), United India Insurance Company V. Pierce Leslie India Ltd. (2000(1) KLJ 460) and Alias V. Paul (2003 (2) KLT 992). In one case this court held that when entry of transport vehicle is permitted in a factory premises, such premises constitute a "public place" for the purpose of liability for compensation payable by the Insurance Company under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Similarly in the other two cases this court held that road leading to a stone quarry and workshop premises can be treated as public place for the purpose of Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 2 (34) of the Motor Vehicles Act defines public place as follows:

"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 passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage.

From the above we are of the view that public place does not have a restricted m