RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. TULSABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the owner of the vehicle under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') challenging that part of the order by which insurance companies have been exonerated from their liability to pay compensation on the ground that the accident did not occur in a 'public place' as defined in section 2 (34) of the Act.

(2.) There is Diamond Cement Factory at Damoh. Trucks and dumpers come inside the said factory to load cement bags for transportation to various destinations. On 3.4.1996 at about 10.30 p.m. such vehicles were standing in queue waiting for their turn to load cement bags. Truck No. CPQ 7157 was also there. Non-applicant No. 1 Phoolchand was its driver, non-applicant No. 3 Rajendra Singh (the appellant) is its owner and it was insured with the non-applicant No. 5 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Behind this truck there was dumper No. MP 15-D 0403. Non-applicant No. 2 Ghanshyam was its driver. It was owned by non-applicant No. 4 Raghubar Prasad and it was insured with non-applicant No. 6 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The driver of the truck wanted to move the vehicle forward for loading the cement bags but the engine did not start. On his request the driver of the dumper gave a push to the truck by his vehicle and in that process Lakhanlal aged about 22 years who was a labourer in the truck was crushed and he died on the spot. The applicants are his legal representatives who submitted the application under section 166 of the Act claiming compensation. The Claims Tribunal, after appreciation of the evidence adduced by both the sides, gave the finding that there was composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles which resulted in the death of Lakhanlal. His income was determined at Rs. 3,000 per month. The dependency was assessed at Rs. 2,000 x 12 = Rs. 24,000 per annum and on applying the multiplier of 16, the amount of compensation was arrived at Rs. 3,84,000. To this amount a sum of Rs. 10,000 was added towards the loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased. Thus, the total compensation of Rs. 3,94,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum was awarded against the drivers and owners of the vehicle and their liability was held to be joint and several. The insurance companies have been exonerated on the ground that the accident did not occur in a 'public place' and, therefore, the case being not covered by section 147 (1) (b) (i) of the Act the liability cannot be fastened on them. The driving licence of the driver of the dumper was found to be valid as it was renewed by the Regional Transport Officer, Sagar for the period 30.6.1994 to 29.6.1997 on 19.11.1994 as per Exh. D-3. Therefore, on the date of accident, i.e., on 3.4.1996 he possessed a valid driving licence and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. could not be exonerated on this ground.

(3.) The only point which has been debated during the course of the hearing of this appeal is whether the place where the accident took place is 'public place' or not within the meaning of section 2 (34) of the Act.