Excessive speed of driver proved.

K.S. Venkataraman, J.

1. This appeal arises out of Original Petition No. 107 of 1963 filed by the appellant, Rajammal, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. One Nallan Naicker, the husband of the appellant, Rajammal, was travelling in lorry MSZ 4627 on 2nd March, 1963, at about 9-50 A.M. The lorry belonged to Messrs. Associated Transport Company, the first respondent, and it had been insured with the second respondent, the Motor Owners Insurance Company, as required by Sections 94 and 95 of the Act. The lorry was loaded with iron shafts, and the lorry was transporting them from the Madras Harbour to a company called Shardlow India Ltd. The lorry came along the main road, Madhavaram High Road, which runs from south to north, and then entered the compound called Huzur Gardens, in a portion of which the company Shardlow India Ltd., is situated. There are two gates to the Huzur Garden facing Madhavaram High Road. One was an entrance and the other, an exit gate. The lorry came along Madhavaram High Road, turned west into Huzur Gardens and after passing about 2\ furlongs, turned north to reach Shardlow India Ltd., which was about a furlong north. Just after the turning, some of the iron shafts rolled back from the lorry and Nallan Naicker who was seated on the top of the shafts was thrown down and struck by some of the shafts. He was in due course removed to the hospital and he died within a few hours as a result of the injuries sustained in the above manner. On these facts, Rajammal preferred a claim for Rs. 15,000.

2. The main basis of the claim was that the driver of the lorry, one Jayaraj, as disclosed by the evidence on her side, was driving the lorry at an excessive speed. It would also appear that the iron shafts had not been tied properly. They were tied by a rope about 1/2" in diameter and there was no rear covering to prevent them from sliding backwards. The real ground of the claim was that the driver was driving the vehicle fast and was, therefore;, negligent and that the incident which resulted in the death of the deceased was as a result of the negligence of the driver of the vehicle and therefore the owner of the vehicle would be liable; and because it had been insured, the second respondent, the Insurance Company would also be liable.

3. The claim was resisted by the owner on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the driver and that he had been driving the vehicle at a low speed of ten miles. It was also pleaded that the quantum of the claim was excessive.

4. The Insurance Company pleaded in addition that it was not liable because, according to it, the place where the accident took place was not a public place within the meaning of Section 95 (1) (b) of the Act. It may be stated that Section 94 requires a policy of insurance to be taken out by the owner of a motor vehicle complying with the requirements of Chapter VIII. Section 95 (1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads thus:

In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in Sub-section (2) against any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any person caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place.

'Public Place ' is defined in Section 2 (24) of the Act thus:

"Public Place" means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage.

The contention of the Insurance company is based on the averments that the area of Huzur Gardens (about 93 acres) is owned by one legal individual, Amalgamations Private Ltd., that a number of public companies are situated there, that the public have no right of access to the premises