Liability under the Motor Vehicles Act is affirmed in public places regardless of ownership, impacting compensation calculation.

ex parte – R3 JUDGMENT The appellant/2^nd respondent Insurance company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the fair and decretal order dated 10.12.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.828 of 2006 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trichy.

2.The brief case of the claimants is as follows:-

(i) On 31.01.2005, at about 10.15 hours, the deceased Amudha was standing on the road near M/s.Anand Industries, Devaraya Neri, in the course of employment. At that time, a Crane bearing Registration No.PY 01 E 2842 owned by the 1st respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and as a result of which she was thrown to the ground,and the front wheel of the Crane ran over her . She sustained multiple grievous injuries on the vital part of the body and was taken to Government Hospital, Trichy, where after examination, the doctor declared her dead.

(ii) In this connection, Thuvakudi Police registered a case against the driver of the 1st respondent and conducted an investigation. The petitioners have claimed Rs.8 lakhs as compensation for the loss of life of deceased Amudha arising out of the motor accident.

3. The second respondent National Insurance company filed counter statement denying the averments made in the petition. According to the second respondent, the accident occurred due to the mechanical defects of the Crane. It was further contended that the 1^st respondent represented that thecrane was used as a tool and machinery and therefore as per the conditions of the insurance policy, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The second respondent also contended that the claim made by the petitioners is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. During trial, on the side of the petitioner, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked.

5.Upon consideration of the materials available on record, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,45,000/- and directed the second respondent to pay the award amount along with interest @ 7.5% pa from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

6. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company is before this Court contending that the place of a occurrence was not a public place and therefore, there is no liability on the part of the appellant/insurance company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. The deceased was a spinster aged about 18 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal ought to have deduced half monthly salary towards a personal and living expenditure, but the Tribunal detected one third, which is not proper and liable to be set aside.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. Now, this Court has to decide the following point for consideration:-

(1) whether the order passed by the Tribunal is proper or liable to be set aside ?

9. Point No.1:

The first ground raised by the appellant is that the place of occurrence was not a public place, but belonged to a private person, and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

10. On perusal of the records, this court finds that PW2 eyewitness to the occurrence categorically stated that the accident occurred at the entrance point of the company where a road had been laid. RW2, the investigating officer of the insurance company also admitted that the place of occurrence was at the entry point of the company. Therefore, it stands prove that the accident did not occur inside a private place.

11. Se