Interpretation of the term 'public place' under the Motor Vehicles Act and the need for a purposive interpretation to ensure compensation for accident victims.

JUDGMENT :

C.T. Ravikumar, J.

The captioned appeals arise from the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in O.P. (M.V)No.1247 of 2002. The former appeal has been preferred by the petitioner in the said claim petition seeking for enhancement of the compensation granted by the Tribunal and the latter appeal has been preferred by the insurance company of the offending vehicle viz., the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal, seeking to set aside the award to the extent the Tribunal had declined its prayer for exoneration from the liability to indemnify the insured owner of the said vehicle. True that, alternatively, as an abundant caution, the appellant-insurance company has also mounted challenge against the quantum of compensation on the ground of exorbitancy. A succinct narration of the facts and circumstances that led to the filing of the said claim petition is required for a proper disposal of this appeal.

2. The appellant in the former appeal, viz., the petitioner met with the accident in question, on 1.4.2002 at the age of nine years. On that day, about 2.30 p.m., she was playing in her courtyard situated at a place called Kadalayi. The offending vehicle belonged to her own father. The 2nd respondent was its driver engaged by her own father. The accident had occurred when the 2nd respondent suddenly started the van parked in the premises of the house and took it forward. Consequently, the appellant-petitioner got jammed in between the van and the veranda of the house. On sustaining grievous injuries, she was taken to Dhanalakshmi Hospital, Kannur and from there she was referred to Specialists Hospital, Ernakulam. She remained there as an inpatient till 21.5.2002. Earlier, on 2.4.2002, her right leg was amputated and then, on 4.4.2002, her left leg was also amputated. She was then studying in St.Theresis High School, Payyambalam in Standard II. It was in the said circumstances that taking up the contention that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligent driving of the 2nd respondent and therefore, the first respondent being the owner of the van is vicariously liable and since the vehicle in question was insured with the 3rd respondent, it is liable to indemnify the first respondent, the claim petition was filed through her mother. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereafter in this judgment in accordance with their rank and status before the Tribunal, unless otherwise specified.

3. The Tribunal, as per the impugned judgment, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 6,09,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of petition till realisation. It is feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award that the aforesaid appeals have been preferred by the petitioner and also by the 3rd respondent insurer, as mentioned hereinbefore. It is to be noted that at the risk of the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 were already deleted from the array of parties in the former appeal. Though they are parties in the latter appeal, even after receipt of notice, they have not chosen to enter appearance and contest the matter.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/the appellant in the former appeal and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, the insurance company/the appellant in the latter appeal.

5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that it is only appropriate to deal firstly with the contentions in M.A.C.A.No.2580 of 2008 filed by the insurance company, the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal.

M.A.C.A.No.2580 of 2008

6. In this appeal, the main contention of the appellant/3rd respondent in the claim petition, is that in view of the indisputable position obtained that the accident involving the vehicle insured with it, had occurred not in a public place, but in the courtyard of the in