The definition of 'public place' and the liability of the insurer are key in determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company against the award dated 26.8.2011 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG) (for short, 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 137 of 2011.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 9.6.2009 at about 5 p.m. the respondent No. 6 reversed the truck bearing registration No. CG 04 - J 1411 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Dwarika Prasad Kashyap, who was at that time working in the Motor Mechanic Garage, Bilaspur, as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries on his body. He was admitted in CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur where he died while undergoing treatment. The claimants, being the dependants / legal representatives, have filed claim petition under S.166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act, 1988') seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,86,800 under various heads.

3. The Claims Tribunal, after hearing the parties in the matter and considering the material on record, partly allowed the claim petition of the claimants, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,74,000 as compensation and fastened the appellant herein with the liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant insurer has contended that the place where accident had occurred, i.e., motor workshop, is not a public place. He has further contended that to attract the provisions of S.166 of the Act, 1988 it is necessary to prove rashness and negligence on the part of the driver, but in the instant case the claimants utterly failed to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and, therefore, the claim application itself was not maintainable. Thus, the appellant insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
So far as the quantum part of the impugned award is concerned, it has been argued by learned counsel that nothing has come on record to show that the parents were dependent upon the deceased rather it is admitted fact that they are earning from the agricultural land owned by them, but the Claims Tribunal treating the parents as dependent on the deceased, has deducted only 1/4th from the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. Therefore, the compensation assessed by the Claims Tribunal is not proper.

5. To appreciate the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that workshop of the motor vehicles was not a 'public place', we have to peruse the definition of the 'public place' given in S.2 (34) of the Act, 1988 which is quoted as under:
"(34) 'public place' means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage;"
A bare reading of the above would show that a road, street, way or other place to which the public have a right of access comes within the purview of 'public place'.

6. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sahiba Khatun , 2000 ACJ 168 (MP), the Hon'ble High Court repelling the contention of learned counsel for the insurance company that the accident occurred in the mines area, the premises owned by Central Coal Fields, therefore, the place of accident was not a public place as defined under S.2 (34) of the Act, has held that "though the entry is restricted, but the members of public have access on permission. That would not mean that it would cease to be a public place. If the accide