Ramachandran Nair, J.

Both these appeals are from the award in O.P.(MV) No.653/2002 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda. In M.A.C.A.No.1400/2008, the claimants are the appellants and in the other appeal, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle are the appellants.

2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal that the Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the award is not correct. The learned counsel relied upon various judgments of this Court explaining the meaning of the term "public place" under Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Act. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal's view goes against the said legal position rendered by this court in various judgments.

3. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that going by the facts of the case, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be faulty.

4. Before going to the legal issues raised, we will refer to the necessary facts to analyse the contentions.

The claimants are the widow and children of one Sasidharan Nair who died in a motor accident at Vasupuram on 21.01.2002. He was working as Grade II Operator in the Electrical wing of the Minor Irrigation Department under the Government. It was alleged in the petition that while he was standing near a well at the side of the public way near the property of one Narayanankutty, a tempo van bearing Reg.No.KL-8/F 6318 driven by the second respondent before the Tribunal, which was heavily loaded with bundles of harvested paddy crops in the platform came along the public way and the load hit on the body of late Sasidharan as a result of which he fell in the nearby well. Later he succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained in the said fall.

5. Before the Tribunal, the second claimant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked. Ext.B1 is the document marked on the side of the respondents, which is the copy of the Insurance policy.

6. Much argument was raised based on the contents of the police records as well as the evidence of PW1 as it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the spot of accident cannot be reckoned as a public place. Ext.A2 is the mahazer prepared by the police. The spot of accident is shown as the north eastern corner of the court yard of a residential compound wherein one Narayanankutty, S/o Subadrama is residing with his family. The well is located in the said corner. It is noted in the scene mahazer that there are four electrical lines drawn at a height of 3 m. 20 cm. and about one metre north of the well. The police have also recorded that throughout the entire court yard, the harvested crops have been stored. On the north of it at a distance of 15 metre there is a residential house of one Kallyanikutty Amma and the paramba and about 50 metres north east the residential compound and paramba of one Narayanan Namboodiri and on the east is the residential compound of the complainant. Significantly it is also noticed that just on the western side of the compound there is a Panchayath road located north south and there are residential buildings on the north of it.

7. In the police charge, which is marked as Ext.A3, the driver was arrayed as an accused and the offence alleged is under Section 304 A IPC. It is stated that the accident occurred when the driver took the vehicle backwards to the residential court yard of Narayanankutty. At that point of time, the heavy load of harvested crop hit against the body of Sasidharan and caused him to fall down in the well and he sustained serious injuries to the spinal cord. He died in the hospital on 25.1.2002 at 5 p.m. In the postmortem report, the opinion as to cause of death is shown as the injury sustained to cervical vertebrae involving spinal cord.

8. We will have to assess the various aspects in the light of the above documents as well as the evidence of PW1.

9. We will now come to the deposition of PW1. He is