A petrol bunk is not a public place within the meaning of Section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as the public does not have a right of free access to the place.

V. Ratnam, J.

1. This appeal, at the instance of the owner of the lorry bearing registration No. TDU 1536, is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chengalpattu in M.A.C.O.P. No. 459 of 1982 awarding a sum of Rs. 16,400/- as compensation to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the death of their son Raman in an accident that took place on 20.7.1982 involving the lorry of the appellant

2. According to the case of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, their son, deceased Raman, was sleeping under a tree near the petrol bunk in Tambararn Sanatorium on the night of 20.7.1982 and at that time, the lorry belonging to the appellant, which was driven negligently, ran over him and killed him and in respect of that, compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,000/-should be awarded to them. In the counter filed by the appellant, she contended that the lorry was parked in a corner as deceased Raman was sleeping under the tree and owing to the vibration caused by the passing traffic on the highway, the lorry started moving resulting in the accident and deceased Raman was also responsible for the accident. The quantum of compensation was also characterized to be excessive and on the higher side. The third respondent, insurance company, in its counter, besides adopting the counter of the appellant, put forth the plea that the accident did not happen in a public place and, therefore, no liability could be fastened on the insurance company.

3. Before the Tribunal, the second respondent and another person who was working in the petrol bunk were examined as PWs 1 and 2, while, on behalf of the appellant and the third respondent, Exhs. B-1 and B-2 were marked and the manager of the petrol bunk, the driver of the vehicle and the Assistant Divisional Manager of the third respondent gave evidence as RWs 1 to 3. On consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that deceased Raman was not in any manner responsible for the accident, but that the accident was caused only by the negligence and carelessness of the driver of the lorry belonging to the appellant, that the accident took place within the petrol bunk premises and, therefore, the compensation amount of Rs. 16,400/-determined as payable should be paid by the appellant and not the third respondent, insurance company. In accordance with these findings, the Tribunal passed an award directing the appellant to pay to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the compensation amount of Rs. 16,400/-, the correctness of which is questioned in this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant first contended that the evidence clearly establishes that the accident took place outside the petrol bunk premises and, therefore, the third respondent, insurance company, would be liable to pay the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the third respondent, insurance company, submitted that even according to the plan submitted along with the accident report by the appellant, marked as Exh. B-2, the appellant had accepted that the accident had taken place within the premises of the petrol bunk and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the accident had taken place within the petrol bunk premises.

5. For the determination of the question whether the accident took place within the premises of the petrol bunk or outside it, the oral evidence available is not very helpful. The second respondent examined as PW 1 has not given any useful evidence with reference to the manner in which the accident took place, though she had given details of the earnings of her deceased son Raman. PW 2, who was working in the petrol bunk and was not on duty on the day when the accident took place, in the course of his chief-examination, stated that deceased Raman was sleeping on the road and that the lorry belonging to the appellant took a wrong turn and ran over him. However, in the course of his cross-examination, PW 2 stated that the lorry of the