The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for compensation in respect of accidents, regardless of whether they occurred in public or private places, as long as the Tribunal's jurisdiction extends to the area where the accident took place.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal and I Additional District Jodge, Bangalore, in MV. Case no. 7/1969 holding that the application filed by the Claimant-appellant was not maintainable in view of an admitted fact that the accident in question had taken place within the private premises of National Aeronautic laboratory, Kodihalli, Bangalore and therefore not a public place.

( 2 ) IT is seen from the proceedings before the Tribunal that it was conceded as a fact, that the spot where the accident took place was not a public place as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act. Theiefore, the only question of law that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether a claims Tribunal constituted under S. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, has or has not jurisdiction over matters arising out of accidents taking place in places which are not public places as defined under the Motor vehicles Act, 1939.

( 3 ) THE incident in question happened on 5-8-1968. The accidents claims Tribunals are constituted by virtue of the provisions of S. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. S. 110 (1) as i,t stood prior to its amendment by 2-3-1970 reads as follows :" A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereinafter referred to as claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles. "a reading of the above provision makes it plain that it empowers the State government to constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals by issuing a notification in the Official Gazette and prescribing the area or areas over which the Tribunals would have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injuries to persons arising out of the use of Motor Vehicles. It is also plain that the said section by itself does not place any restrictions in regard to places by characterising places either as public or as private places. Hence it is necessary to make a reference to the notification issued by the State Government while constituting the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal at Bangalore. The First Additional District Judge, Bangalore, was appointed as Member cf the said Tribunal by such a notification issued on 24-2-1968. A reference to this notification shows that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal extended over the whole of Bangalore District. The notification has not made any distinction between private places and public places in Bangalore District. A result of reading of the provisions of this notification and S. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, would clearly be that the State Government by exercising its powers under S. 110 of the act, constituted a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and appointed the First additional District Judge as Member and fixed Bangalore District as the area over which the Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicte upon for claims of compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles. We have therefore no hesitation in holding that the conclusion of the Tribunal that it had no jurisdiction in view of the fact that the accident in question had taken place not in a public place but in the National Aeronautic Laboratory, kodihalli, Bangalore, cannot be upheld. The learned Member has nowhere in the order passed by him made it clear as to why he was under the impression that the Tribunal had jurisdiction only in regard to claims arising out of accidents in public places.

( 4 ) IN the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the award passed by the Tribunal in MV. Case No. 7/69. We direct that the records be sent to the Tribunal below for disposal of the claims case