Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation for motor accident in factory premises.

A. Subbulakshmy, J

1. Claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased Janakiraman, who died as a result of the accident that occurred on 26. 1994 at about 22.05 hours while he was proceeding in his moped from the West to East towards loading section in his factory. At that time the tempo bearing Registration No.TDD 8706 came from North to South inside the factory driven by its driver, the third respondent, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the moped which the deceased Janakiraman was driving. The said Janakiraman was thrown off from his vehicle and he sustained injuries and inspite of intensive treatment in the hospital, he died.

2. The tribunal found that the accident had happened due to the negligent driving of the tempo driver, the third respondent. The tribunal had further found that the place where the accident occurred is a private place and the second respondent Insurance Company is not liable as per provisions of section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and he has directed respondents 1 and 3 to pay the compensation amount.

3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the tribunal, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

4. Thelearned counsel for the appellants/ claimants submitted that even if the accident had happened if in the private place, the place is accessible to the members of the public and is available for their use, enjoyment and avocation, it is a public place and not a private place as the other people have got right of entry. He places reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathi Devi & others, 1999 T.N.L.J. 144 wherein this Court has held that public place includes places where public have an access whether free or controlled in any manner.

5. Section 2(24) of the Act defines Public Place as a road, street, way or other places whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access and includes any stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage. In the above decision a full Bench of this Court has held that the definition of public place is very wide. A perusal of the same reveals that of the public at large has a right to access though that right is regulated or restricted as the definition under the Act uses the expression right of access what, is significant is that under the present definition even a place the right to use of which is restricted is a public place.

6. In the instant case, the accident had happened in the factory premises. The place is accessible to the members of the public and available for the use of public, who have dealings ... Following the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, we are of the view that the place where the occurrence had happened is a public place and the second respondent Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation as per the provisions of the Act.

7. The deceasedwas working as Junior Assistant in M/s T.V.S. Suzuki Limited and he was drawing a salary of Rs.4,270 per month. His salary certificate Ex.A.1 is also produced. It is seen from Ex.A.1 that the deceased Janakiraman was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.3,033.20 at the time of his death. Ex. A.3 shows that he was also drawing bonus of Rs. 1,599.36 and ex gratia payment of Rs.2,509.74 i.e., totally Rs.4,0810. He was also drawing Rs 213.57 as attendance incentive. The tribunal has found that the monthly payment is made on the basis of regularity of the attendance and, therefore, it is a contingency payment which may vary and taking that into account, it has fixed the attendance incentive at Rs.125 per mensum. It is also evident from Ex.A1 that late Janakiraman was getting plant performance incentive of Rs.2,760 per annum and educational allowance of Rs.2,300 per annum and apart from his pay and attendance incentives, late Janakiraman was paid Rs.934.10 towards bonus and other incentives and allowances and dividing this by 12 the other paymen