BHAWANI SINGH, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhar in Claim Case no. 50 of 1997, dated 24. 12. 1997.

( 2 ) CLAIMANTS are the wife, children and mother of deceased Umraosingh who was 32 years old at the time of accident which took place on 10. 6. 1994 when he was hit by his tractor near a land where it was being taken by the driver who had been employed by Apa, s/o Bhuwan. Claim of rs. 22,88,500 (rupees twenty-two lakh eighty-eight thousand and five hundred)has been raised for the death of deceased who according to the claimants was earning yearly income of Rs. 1,00,000 (rupees one lakh ). This vehicle was insured with oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , 569/3, M. G. Road, Indore (MP ). The allegation is that it was being driven rashly and negligently resulting in serious injuries on the person of the deceased, who could not survive despite being taken to the hospital. Due to his death the claimants have been rendered to suffer immensely, domestically and financially. Owner and driver of the vehicle did not appear to answer the claim, therefore, proceeded ex parte. Appellant stated that the accident took place at a private place and not in public place, therefore, the Motor Vehicles Act is not applicable. Further, deceased was himself owner of the vehicle, therefore, not entitled to claim compensation. Above all, driver did not possess valid driving licence to drive the vehicle therefore, liability for payment of compensation cannot be rested on the appellant. The Claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion that on 10. 6. 1994 deceased was going from his house to the field slowly and on the left side but the tractor driven rashly and negligently hit him causing serious injuries resulting in death on 16. 6. 94. The Claims Tribunal held that claim petition was maintainable and accident had taken place at public place and compensation of Rs. 2,72,000 (rupees two lakh and seventy-two thousand) has been awarded carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of application. Appellant is not satisfied with the award therefore, this appeal. Similarly, the claimants have filed cross-objection seeking enhancement of the compensation.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and record perused.

( 4 ) MR. Pramod Meetha, learned counsel for the appellant forcefully contended that award is liable to be set aside against the appellant, since claimants cannot claim compensation for the death of deceased who himself happens to be the owner of the vehicle. The learned counsel placed reliance on Hemlata Sahu v. Ramadhar, 2000 ACJ 134 (MP); United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Valliammal, 1998 ACJ 1336 (Madras), in support of the contention. This contention is opposed by Mr. Neema, learned counsel for the claimants. Counsel for the claimants drew our attention to decisions like New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Doredla Satyanarayana, 1998 acj-952 (AP); Laliya Bai v. Ramesh, 1991 acj 505 (MP) and Chimajirao Kanhojirao shirke v. Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. , 2001 ACJ 8 (SC ). The first question to be considered in this case is, whether the place where the accident took place, falls within the definition of 'public place' under section 2 (34) of Motor Vehicles act, 1988. The Claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident took place near the field owned by Shivgiri mahraj. The definition of 'public place' has to be construed liberally, broadly and pragmatically and not in a pedantic and narrow sense with a view to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the same. Assuming, the vehicle may have crossed the 'public place' to some extent, and was getting to the field of Shivgiri Mahraj, it cannot be construed that the field of Shivgiri Mahraj was private place in the strict sense of the term. Generally, fields in villages may be owned and possessed by a particular land owner but that does not mean that no one can pass through the same unless there is a specif

Click Here to Read the rest of this document