The definition of 'public place' in the Motor Vehicles Act includes areas with vehicular access, establishing liability for insurers in accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.

This appeal is filed by the 1st respondent/owner in O.P (MV) No.1175 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The respondents herein are the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 17.12.2010 at about 11.30 am, while the claimant was walking along the side of the road, a JCB bearing registration No.KL-17-C-5708 driven by the 1^st respondent was operated in a rash and negligent manner and the bucket of the JCB hit on the right leg of the claimant. As a result of the accident, the claimant had sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

3. The 1st respondent, driver of the offending JCB, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 2^nd respondent, insurer of the o JCB, filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed as well as the naration of accident. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.66,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs from 1^st respondent, owner cum driver, on the finding that the accident occurred in a private place, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Challenging the award passed by the tribunal directing the owner to pay compensation amount awarded by the tribunal, the first respondent, owner cum driver, has come up in appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/owner submitted that the accident occurred while the JCB was being used in the property belonging to the father of the petitioner in connection with some works in the rubber plantation. It is further submitted that the finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred in a private place and directing the appellant to pay the compensation is erroneous on the basis of the judgments of this Court in Rajan P v. K.J.John and others [ 2009 (1) KHC 631 ] and Parukutty and others v. K.P.Joseph and others [2015 KHC 3701], wherein the definition of the public place has been widened, for the private places where there is entry to the public vehicles. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the insurance policy was issued by the insurer for the construction equipment vehicle which is meant for construction purposes. Since the vehicle was used in the rubber estate for the purpose of digging holes, and as the vehicle had access into the property, the rubber plantation is also to be treated as a public place.

5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant submitted that the accident occurred on 17.12.2010 while he was walking along the side of the road adjacent to the property belonging to his father, which was a rubber estate. Ext.A4 charge sheet was drawn against driver of the JCB, It is further submitted that while he was standing at the junction of a public road and his father’s property, the bucket of the JCB driven by the 1^st respondent hit his right leg and resulting in fracture on right clavicle, fracture on 4^th rib right and abrasion on right forehead and right leg.

6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/insurance company submitted that as per Ext.A2 scene mahazar, the accident had taken place in a rubber plantation. Since the accident was not on a public road, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation for the injuries sustained to the claimant.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company.

8