The main legal point established is the application of the wider interpretation of 'public place' and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to establish negligence in motor vehicle accident cases.

DIPAK MISRA, J. :- The claimants-appellants, the legal representatives of deceased Lakhan Singh Lodhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants'), have called in question the sustainability of the award dated 31-1-2005 passed in Claim Case No. 66/03 by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagar (in short 'the tribunal').

2. The facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of this appeal are that on 23-10-2002 Lakhan Singh Lodhi was seated in a tractor bearing registration No. M.P. 15/F-2354 belonging to Pratap Singh the respondent No. 1, for the purpose of ploughing the field of one Khalak Singh and at that juncture the tractor turned turtle as a result of which Lakhan Singh came underneath the said tractor and breathed his last at the spot. A report was lodged by Khalak Singh son of Roop Singh Lodhi at the Police Station, Gorjhamar and accordingly a criminal case under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Because of the death of Lakhan Singh his legal representatives initiated an action under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation of Rs. 26,10,000/- on the ground that the deceased was aged about 25 years and was earning Rs. 50,000/- per annum by doing agricultural activities along with his father and by ploughing and sowing the fields by tractor.

3. The respondent No. 1 while replying the claim putforth by the claimants admitted most of the facts. He contended that the claimants have putforth a claim in an exaggerated manner; and that he is the registered owner of the tractor in question which was insured with the respondent No. 2, New India Insurance Co. Ltd. on the date of accident and, therefore, in case of any liability, would be on the insurer. The respondent No. 1 accepted that the deceased used to drive the tractor in question and he had the licence for the said purpose. The respondent No. 1 also contended that on the date of accident the deceased was driving the said tractor on his instructions according to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

4. The respondent No. 2, the insurer, while replying to the claim of the appellants denied the averments of the claim petition on the ground of want of knowledge and contended that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. It further contended that on the date of accident the Tractor Engine No. 77387, Chasis No. 334079 were insured according the conditions of the insurance policy and hence, it cannot be said that the tractor bearing No.MP-15-F/2354 was insured on the relevant date. The Insurance Company also took the stand that the driver of the tractor did not possess the valid driving licence and that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also pleaded that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased and since the same did not occur at the public place, the claimants are not entitled for compensation on the basis of principle of no fault.

5. The Tribunal on consideration of the material brought on record came to hold that the deceased had not breathed his last in a public place and the factum of negligence has not been proved and on that basis awarded Rs. 50,000/- compensation towards 'No Fault Liability'.

6. Two questions emerge for consideration. First, whether the accident had taken place in a public place. Before we advert to the fact situation it is apposite to note some citations in the field. In the case of Narsingh and another v. Balkishan deceased through LRs and others, 1988 ACJ 288 it has been held as under :-

"5. The sole question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the printing press, where the accident took place, can be said to be a 'public place' within the meaning of Section 95 (1) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 'Public place', as defined by Section 2 (24) of the Mot