Express Estate whether can be held as public place.

RAMANUJAM, J. :- This appeal is directed against the award of "the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras in O.P. No.440 of 1974 dismissing the appellant's claim for compensation in a sum of Rs. 40,000, for the death of one Jayaraman in a motor vehicle accident.

2. On 14-8-1974, at about 6-30 a.m. the said deceased Jayaraman was walking in the Express Newspapers estate, Madras, from north to south. At that time lorry MDY 2601 belonging to the first respondent, Express Newspapers Ltd. proceeding from east towards south driven by one Rajamanner knocked him down on account of which he sustained multiple and grievous injuries which ultimately resulted in his death in the hospital. On the basis that the said accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's lorry MDY 2601, by its driver the wife and children of the deceased filed a claim petition O.P; No.440 of 1974, claiming a compensation of Rs. 40,000, as against the first respondent, the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent, the insurer with which the lorry had been insured.

3. The said claim was opposed by the first respondent on the ground that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, that the accident was due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the deceased himself and that in any event, the compensation claimed was excessive. It was also contended that the deceased was an employee covered by and insured under the Employees' State Insurance Act and the scheme framed thereunder and the claimants having claimed and obtained compensation under the Employees' State Insurance Act, they have no right to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore the claim petition is not maintainable in

law.

4. The Insurer, the second respondent, resisted the claim petition contending that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, that the accident was due to the negligence of the deceased himself, and that the accident having occurred inside the Express Estate which is not a public place, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

5. On these pleadings the points that were set down for consideration by the Tribunal were; (1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry? (2) If so, to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled? (3) Whether the deceased was an employee covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act and if so, whether the first respondent is not liable to pay the compensation claimed? and (4) Whether the accident occurred in a public place so as to make the insurer liable?

6. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the driver. On the second question the Tribunal held that if the liability of the respondents to pay compensation is upheld, the fair and reasonable compensation would be Rs. 32,600. But as the Tribunal held on questions 3 and 4 that the accident did not occur in a public place and that the claim petition is barred under S.53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, it was held that the claimants are not entitled to claim any compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. In this view, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

7. In this appeal filed by the claimants the only two questions that arise for consideration are (1) Whether the accident occurred in a public place so as to make the insurer liable for compensation in relation thereto; and (2) Whether the claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is barred by S.53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act. The other two questions, which were considered by the Tribunal and its findings thereon have become final, do not arise for consideration as those findings are in favour of the appellants in this appeal.

8. Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires a policy of insurance to be taken out by the owner