NAKULA SWAIN Vs. RAVI SURESH KU. GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the claimants -appellants and learned counsel for the Insurance Company -respondent no. 2. None appears for the owner -respondent no. 1 inspite of service of notice. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment/award dated 10.09.2009, passed by the 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri, in M.A.C. Case No. 150/290 of 2001, awarding an amount of Rs. 1,76,000/ - as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e. 21.06.2001, till realization and directing the owner of the vehicle -respondent no. 1 to pay the same.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the claimants submits that as the deceased was working as a Coolie under respondent no. 1 and while sitting on the road inside the factory premises, the vehicle (Truck) bearing No. MH -21/5742 suddenly moved backward without any prior indication and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which he sustained severe injuries and subsequently succumb to the injury. It is submitted that merely because the deceased died in an accident arising out of use of motor vehicle inside the factory premises, learned Tribunal has come to hold that the said premises is not a 'public place' and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. In this regard, it is submitted that even if the accident took place inside the factory premises of the owner -respondent no. 1, the same is a 'public place' for the purpose of M.V. Act, even if the entry of person is restricted or regulated, as has been held in the case of M/s. M.K. Bhaumik -vrs. -Sukura Singh and others, in 2011(3) T.A.C. 321 (Ori).

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Insurance Company submits that as the accident took place inside the factory premises of respondent no. 1, the same is not a 'public place' as defined under Section 2(34) of the M.V. Act and therefore learned Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle -respondent no. 2.