( 1 ) BY this appeal the appellant - original opponent No. 3 United india Insurance Co. Ltd. , has questioned legality and validity of the judgment and award dated 24-12-1996 delivered in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 336 of 1992 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar.

( 2 ) THE main question which has come up before us for consideration and adjudication in this appeal is "whether the vehicular accident in question could be said to have occurred in a "public place" as defined under S. 2 (34) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (New Act) ?"

( 3 ) IN order to examine and appreciate the main question, we would like to highlight skeleton projection of the facts. The respondent No. 1 Gujarat Ship Trading corporation which is the original claimant "corporation" by filing the aforesaid claim petition claimed Rs. 2,58,000. 00 under S. 166 of the New Act and inter alia contended that the goods belonging to it came to be damaged on account of rash and negligent use of a public carrier No. GTS 7023 driven by the respondent No. 2-original opponent No. 1 belonging to the respondent No. 3-original opponent No. 2.

( 4 ) IN short, the appellant is the insurer. The respondent No. 1 is the claimant, the respondent No. 2 is the driver and the respondent No. 3 is insured in respect against the award passed by M. A. C. Tribunal, Bhavnagar. of the public carrier No. GTS 7023 which was involved in the accident and therefore, for the sake or convenience and brevity they are hereinafter referred as such as arraigned in the main petition.

( 5 ) THE claimant-Corporation is the registered partnership firm and has three partners and the partnership firm is doing ship breaking business and occupies Plot no. 12 Alang Ship Yard. The damages caused to goods are claimed by the claimant on the premise that the public carrier which was involved in the accident was loaded with the iron plates for being transported to Bhavnagar and after loading work was over the public carrier went out for weighment of the goods. The public carrier was going for that purpose. At that time, the driver original opponent No. 1 was in charge of the said carrier and accident took place.

( 6 ) IT was inter alia contended that the public carrier driven by the original opponent No. 1, driver all of a sudden started into reverse. As a result of which, the driver all of a sudden applied brakes which resulted into breaking of gear joint and gear pipe and thereafter it went into the Plot No. 12 occupied by the claimant, as a result of which, the goods like engine turbo, panel board, air conditioners split unit, radio unit, fire unit etc. , come under the wheel and got damaged. The claimant got damages to the goods assessed and surveyed through the recognised Government surveyor. Said survey disclosed damages of Rs. 2,85,000. 00 to the goods after deducting salvage value of Rs. 26,500. 00. The claimant Corporation claimed the said damages from the Insurance Co. of the truck. The claim was not granted or paid as a result of which the claim petition invoking S. 166 of the New Act came to be filed before the Tribunal concerned.

( 7 ) THE Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances, reached to a conclusion that the goods belonging to the claimant - Corporation were damaged on account of rash and negligent driving and use of public carrier in a "public place" insured with the appellant herein, original opponent No. 3. With the result, the tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 2,58,500. 00 by way of compensation for the damages to the goods sustained by the claimant - Corporation with interest at the rate of 15% P. A. , from the date of the application till realisation by passing its award and judgment on 24-12-1996 which is directly under challenge in this appeal before us.

( 8 ) THE main question as we stated hereinabove was as to whether the appellantinsurer the original opponent No. 3 could be fastened with the liability for the payment of compensation or n