The term 'public place' under Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is not limited to places where the public has a right of access but includes places where the public has access, whether free or controlled in any manner whatsoever.

JUDGMENT :

N.K. Jain, Actg. C.J.

1. This reference has been referred to this Bench by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 17.7.1992 made in C.M.A. No. 1036 of 1990. The question referred to this Bench is as follows:

Whether the expression 'public place' for the purpose of Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 will cover all places including those of private ownership where members of the public have an access whether free or controlled in any manner whatsoever?

or

Whether it will cover only places where any member of the public would have access as of right to those places, whether public or private?

2. The facts leading to the order of reference are as follows:

An award of compensation for the death of Devasundaram, a mazdoor in Madras Harbour, occurred in the motor accident which took place on 24.1.1987, was passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal against the appellant insurance company and respondent No. 5 owner of the lorry. Considering the oral and documentary evidence and on perusing the material on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,25,200 against the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle. Against that order, C.M.A. has been filed in this Court.

3. Before a Division Bench, learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company contended that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid heavy motor vehicle licence. It is further contended that the place of accident is not a 'public place' and as such the liability cannot be fastened on the insurance company. The counsel for the appellant insurance company relied on the decisions in Dharmalinga Muda-liar v. N. Mohamed Ebrahim, 1977 ACJ 36 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahadevayya, 1981 TNLJ 170; E. Enjanadevi v. Arumugham, 1983 ACJ 625 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Madras Vs. A. Babu and others, . On the question of 'public place', he also relied on some other decisions.

4. Counsel for the claimants submits that the place of accident is a 'public place'. On consideration, after taking into account the conflicting decisions of this Court and various High Courts, the Division Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench, as mentioned above.

5. Before us, learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company, reiterating the arguments put forth before the Division Bench of this Court, submits that Section 2 (24) of the Motor Vehicles Act, clearly establishes a place as a 'public place'. According to him, if it is construed in that way, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court holds the field and the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Our attention had been drawn by the learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company to the decision in In Re: Kuchampudi Satyanarayana Raju and Others, , in which it has been held as follows:

To constitute a public place it is not necessary that the place should be a public property but if it is private property it must be proved that not only public could have access to it but it is a place to which members of public in fact resort.

6. In a case referred to in Rajammal v. Associated Transport Co., 1970 ACJ 44 , an accident took place inside the precincts of a factory. It has been held that the public had no right of access and as such the insurance company would not be liable for compensation.

7. Much reliance has been shown on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mangalam v. Express Newspapers Ltd., 1982 ACJ 203 , in which it is observed as follows:

What is a public place? Public place is one where the public can go no matter whether they have a right to go or not. Express Estate is surrounded by a compound and has a gate through which the entry is regulated by permission. Hence, accident occurred in private place.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company contended that Section 2 (24) of the Motor Vehicles Act, clearly establishes a place as a 'public place'. If it is construed in that way, as per the decision of a Division Bench of this Cou