The definition of 'public place' under the Motor Vehicles Act is broad, allowing private places with public access to be treated as public for claims, ensuring liability remains with the registered owner unless legally transferred.

JUDGMENT :

(S. SOUNTHAR, J.)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dismissing the claim petition.

2. According to the appellant/claimant on 11.09.2012, when he was waiting for unloading the scrap materials at Sivan Street, Ganapathy Nagar, Maduravoil, a crane belongs to the first respondent insured with the second respondent was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of the same, the Iron bars unloaded by the crane had fallen down on the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner suffered grievous injuries and therefore the claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent owner of the crane remained ex-parte. The second respondent insurer of the vehicle filed counter and denied the manner of accident as averred in the claim petition. It was the case of the second respondent that the crane belonged to the first respondent was not at all involved in the accident. It was also claimed that the said crane was sold to one Karthikeyan and the claim petition filed without impleading said Karthikeyan, who was also driver of the vehicle at the relevant point of time was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

4. Before the claims Tribunal, the appellant/injured claimant was examined as PW.1 and seven documents were marked on the side of the claimant as Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of the second respondent, its investigator was examined as RW.1 and Assistant Manager was examined as RW.2. Four documents were marked on the side of the second respondent as Exs.R1 to R4. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ex.C1.

5. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the claimant did not sustain any injury in an accident occurred on road and hence claim petition before the claims Tribunal was not maintainable. The Tribunal also found that at the time of accident, the crane belonged to one Karthikeyan, who was also driver of the vehicle on the date of occurrence and hence it was for the claimant to initiate appropriate proceedings against him for recovery of damages. With these findings, the claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has come before this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant by taking this Court to the evidence available on record submitted that the accident had occurred at Sivan Street, Ganapathy Nagar, Maduravoil and therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the accident did not occur on road. The learned counsel further submitted that even assuming the accident did not occur in a public road and it occurred in a godown as contended by the respondents, still it can be treated as a public place for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence the claim petition was maintainable before the Tribunal.

7. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs. Parvathi Devi and Others reported in 1999 ACJ 1520 and New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Srinivasan and others reported in 2021 (1) TNMAC 73 .

8. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company would submit that in Ex.P2-Discharge summary, it was clearly mentioned that the accident was caused by an unknown lorry and the FIR was filed nearly after nine months from the date of occurrence and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the claim petition was liable to be dismissed.

9. The learned counsel further submitted that as per investigation report filed by the second respondent marked as EX.R2, the accident had occurred in a godown which cannot be treated as a public place and hence the claim petition was not maintainable before the claims Tribunal.

10. The learned counsel further submitted that the first respondent sold the