The Orissa High Court directed the National Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants for an accident that took place within the premises of a factory and observed that the entry of a transport vehicle or goods carriage vehicle was permitted in the factory premises and it can be concluded that it constituted a public place for compensation under the MV Act and liability on the part of the insurer in terms of Section 147 of the MV Act.
Brief Facts:
The deceased died due to negligent driving of a truck by a drive within the premises of a factory. The trial court directed the appellant to for payment of compensation along with an interest rate in favor of the claimants. An appeal was filed by the appellant questioning its liability to pay the compensation on account of the accident.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The appellant contended that despite the spot of the accident being within the private premises, the learned tribunal did not answer their objection on the question of liability and without answering the same learned tribunal straight away saddled the liability on the insurer.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent prayed for the enhancement of the compensation amount by filing a cross-objection.
Observations of the Court:
The court further stated that in the present case, the premise was a private factory and the accident took place within its premises the premises had access to vehicles for business purposes and the deceased was undisputedly the driver of one such vehicle. The court further stated that the definition of “public place” is to be interpreted in a wider connotation to include any place to which the members of the public use and where they have a right of access.
The court stated that in the present case, the entry of a transport vehicle or goods carriage vehicle was permitted in the factory premises and it can be concluded that it constituted a public place for compensation under the MV Act and liability on the part of the insurer in terms of Section 147 of the MV Act. The court stated that “public place” cannot be confined by a restricted meaning keeping in view the object of the MV Act and it is not to be taken as a place where the public has uncontrolled access at all times and has to be understood concerning the places and for the Act that the places to which a vehicle has access and wherever.
The court further observed that wherever a goods vehicle or a passenger-carrying vehicle has permission to enter, the driver of the vehicles, other employees of the vehicle and the workers engaged thereof for various purposes have deemed to have access and therefore the place has to be treated as a public place and the premise in question in the present case is thus a public place within the meaning of Section 2(34) of the MV Act.
The decision of the Court:
The court disposed of the appeal and directed the appellant to deposit compensation along with an interest rate in favour of the claimants.
Case Title: The Divisional Manager, M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Subala @ Budhibaman Patra and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P Routray
Case No.: MACA No.385 of 2019
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. B. Dasmohapatra
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. B.N Rath
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
