A petrol bunk is not a public place within the meaning of Section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for an accident that occurs within the premises of a petrol bunk.

ORDER :

Swaraikkannu, J.—This is an appeal preferred by Kannammal petitioner/claimant against the order of dismissal of her claim petition M.A.C.A. No. 170 of 1979 on 8-8-1980 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) Salem. The Appellant filed claim application claiming a compensation of Rs. 15,000 towards loss of earnings, mental agony, distress etc., for the death of her son, Ravi who was aged about 12 at the time of his death. The allegations in the claim application filed by the appellant herein before the Tribunal are as follows:

On 25-2-1979 at about 12-30 p.m., the deceased Ravi who was aged about 12, was killed in Venkateswara Super Service Station, Kitchipalayam. A.S. Kasim, the first respondent herein drove the lorry belonging to one Hakeem at the Service Station, rashly and negligently and crushed the boy to death. The deceased was the only earning member in the family. But for the accident, he would live upto 70 years. The original prosecution against the driver of the vehicle was pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Salem, at the lime of the application before the Tribunal. Due to the careless driving of the lorry in the Service Station, the boy was killed.

2. United India Insurance Company second respondent herein in its counter before the Tribunal contended that the allegations in the claim application are not true and they should be proved. It is further contended that it should be proved that the deceased was the son of the claimant and aged about 12 and was on a pay of Rs. 25. The accident was not due to negligent driving of the lorry. The boy ran across suddenly and inspite of best effort, he got hit. The boy was aged only about 9 years. Criminal case was pending against the driver at the time of the application before the Tribunal. The claim of Rs. 15,000 is very heavy and if at all only a sum of Rs. 3,000 could be awarded.

3. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following point for consideration:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a compensation, and if so, how much?

4. On the side of the claimant appellant herein P.W. 1, Kannammal and P.W.2 Mohan were examined before the Tribunal and Ex.A-1 certified copy of judgment dated 15-11-1979 in C.C. No. 951 of 1979 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 1, Salem and Ex.A-2 certified copy of post mortem certificate filed in C.C. No. 951 of 1979 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, No. 1, Salem, were tiled on the side of the claimant. No witness was examined and no document was filed on behalf of the respondents herein before the Tribunal. On the consideration of the above evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident did not happen in a public place when it happened within the precincts of a petrol bunk, and that since the accident did not occur in a public place, the petition has to fail and accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the appellant herein. Aggrieved against the order of dismissal of her application by the Tribunal the appellant herein has come forward with this appeal.

5. Mr. S. Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the place of occurrence viz.. petrol bunk is not a private place since public owning motor vehicles are allowed to take vehicles inside the petrol bunk for filling the tank of the vehicle by purchasing fuel for their vehicle. There is no prohibition for any vehicle owner for purchasing fuel from the premises, and as such, it is a public place. On the other hand, Mr. A. Devanathan. learned counsel for the second respondent Insurance Company, inter alia, contended that the place of occurrence in the instant case before us, is a private place and as such the Tribunal is correct in having held that the accident took place as alleged by P.W. 2, and that the accident did not occur in a public place, and therefore, the petition has to fail and was dismissed. As already p