9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Definition of "public place" under Section 2(24) and its application in Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 2. Liability of the Insurance Company for accidents occurring in private premises with public access. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Definition of "Public Place" under Section 2(24) and its Application in Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 The primary question referred to the court was whether a private road or private place to which the public have permissive access qualifies as a "public place" within the meaning of Section 2(24) and Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The court examined the statutory definition of "public place" as provided in Section 2(24), which states: "'Public place' means a road, street, way, or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage." The court emphasized that the definition is inclusive and broad, encompassing any place where the public has a right of access, whether such access is permissive, restricted, or regulated. The court noted that the term "right of access" does not imply "access as of right," indicating that even places where access is controlled or restricted can be considered public places if the public can access them. The court also reviewed various provisions of the Act to understand the legislative intent, noting that the Act aims to ensure the safety of persons and property exposed to the use of motor vehicles. The court observed that several provisions of the Act impose restrictions on vehicles irrespective of whether they are used in public places or not, highlighting the legislature's concern with the potential risks posed by motor vehicles. Issue 2: Liability of the Insurance Company for Accidents Occurring in Private Premises with Public Access The court reviewed the evidence regarding the place of the accident, which occurred within the compound of a factory owned by the 2nd appellant. The compound included roads used by employees, suppliers, contractors, and visitors, with controlled access through gate passes and security checks. Despite the controlled access, the court found that the compound was a place where the public had a right of access for business purposes. The court considered various judicial precedents on the interpretation of "public place" under the Act and other statutes. It noted a divergence of opinions among different High Courts but preferred the view that places of private ownership with public access, whether free or controlled, should be considered public places for the purposes of Chapter VIII of the Act. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to secure compensation for persons and property exposed to motor vehicle accidents. Based on this reasoning, the court concluded that the place where the accident occurred was a public place within the meaning of Section 95. Consequently, the Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants, overturning the Tribunal's decision. Conclusion The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's decision, and held that the Insurance Company is equally liable to pay compensation as determined by the Tribunal. The execution and operation of the order against the Insurance Company were stayed for eight weeks. Additionally, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted due to the importance of the legal question and the divergence of opinions among High Courts.
|
