K.L. Issrani, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the award dated 12.3.1987, passed in Claim Case No. 21 of 1986 by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur.

2. The appellant had filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Act before the Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, claiming Rs. 60,000/- on account of the death of her husband, late Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2, Pritam Singh, who was driver of truck No. MTG 3178. The truck is owned by respondent No. 1, firm. It is insured with respondent No. 3, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Respondent No. 4, Gyarsilal, is the son of late Hanuman Prasad. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 remained ex parte before the Claims Tribunal.

3. Case of the appellant is that her husband Hanuman Prasad was working as Munim with the respondent No. 1. In the intervening night of 31.5.1984 and 1.6.1984 he was crushed by the truck No. MTG 3178, which was being driven by respondent No. 2, Pritam Singh, rashly and negligently. Consequently, he died on account of the said accident on 1.6.1984 at about 7 a.m. The age of the deceased on the date of accident was 50 years. He was earning Rs. 700/- per month. He could have lived at least upto 70 years. She, therefore, claimed an amount of Rs. 60,000/-.

4. The respondent No. 1 has admitted the material facts pleaded by the appellant. The respondent Nos. 2 and 4 remained ex parte. The respondent No. 3, insurance company, disputed the age and income of the deceased and also the entitlement of the appellant to claim the compensation. Regarding accident it was pleaded by respondent No. 3 that the deceased was standing by the side of the cabin and was giving direction to the respondent No. 2, driver, for reversing the truck. Suddenly he fell down and was crushed.

5. The Claims Tribunal found that Hanuman Prasad died due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2, Pritam Singh. The story of the accident put up by the respondent No. 3 was accepted, but the claim petition was dismissed with costs. According to the Claims Tribunal the claimant is not entitled to the claim because the accident took place in the premises of the mill, which was not a public place. The quantum to which the claimant would have been entitled has not been assessed. Aggrieved by the award, the claimant has filed the present appeal.

6. According to the appellant, the learned Claims Tribunal was wrong in not granting anything either against insurance company or the owner of the truck. According to her even in such type of cases, the insurance company is also liable. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal.

7. The first point which is to be seen is, as to whether the place where the accident took place [Sic. is covered by the definition of 'public place' under Section 2 (24) of the Act] and the liability of the respondents, owner, driver and insurance company. According to the claim petition, the accident took place at about 4 a.m. when deceased Hanuman Prasad was sleeping in the courtyard of Shanker Rice Mill, owned by respondent No. 1. This fact is admitted by the respondent No. 1 while respondent No. 3 has denied that the deceased died as a sequel to the rash and negligent driving of the said truck, while backing it, but according to this respondent Hanuman Prasad was giving directions to the respondent No. 2 for backing the truck in the mill premises. He tried to get in the cabin of the truck. However, he slipped and could not grip the handle near the door of the cabin. He fell down and consequently came under the front wheel of the truck. According to this respondent since accident took place in the mill premises, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

8. In this case it is surprising to note that no finding is arrived at by the Claims Trib