Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court partly allowed the appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) against the award and decree, dated 09.05.2008, awarding compensation, payable by the 1st respondent alone, while dismissing the claim against the 2nd respondent. The Court held that in the light of the definition of ‘public place’ in Section 2(24) of the M.V. Act and the above decision, it is very much clear in the present case that the place of accident is also a public place.
Brief Facts:
The driver of a milk lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner while he was attending to natural calls on the left side of the dairy. As a result, the petitioner sustained a fracture injury to his left leg and multiple other injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was admitted to S.V.R.R. Hospital. A case under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered against the driver of the milk lorry. After the accident, the petitioner is unable to concentrate on his driving work. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the driver of the milk van. However, the claim against the 2nd respondent was dismissed on the ground that the place of the accident is not a public place. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The learned counsel for the appellants contended that if at all, the place of accident is not a public place and the M.V. Act is not applicable, the claim against both the respondents is not maintainable; however, the liability was fastened on the 1st respondent, whereas it was dismissed against the 2nd respondent. He further submitted that a place which is accessible to the public is a public place, irrespective of whether the place is a private place and has restricted entry.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the petition as it is not a public place. He further submitted that the claimant failed to implead the driver of the offending vehicle as a party to the claim petition and therefore, the whole claim petition is not maintainable.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that it is an apparent error committed by the Tribunal in dismissing the claim against the 2nd respondent on the ground that the place of accident is not a public place, while allowing the claim against the 1st respondent under the very same Act.
The Court observed that in the light of the definition of ‘public place’ in Section 2(24) of the M.V. Act and the above decision, it is very much clear in the present case that the place of accident is also a public place. The Court said that if the 2nd respondent preferred the appeal, even if a legal aspect is not raised in the grounds of appeal, it may be urged during the course of arguments. But, this is not an appeal preferred nor any cross objection filed by the 2nd respondent, and even before the Tribunal, no such defence was taken or argued. It is impermissible for the 2nd respondent to contest the appeal on that ground.
Decision of the Court:
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, partly allowing the appeal, set aside the award and decree, dated 09.05.2008, dismissing the claim against the 2nd respondent.
Case Title: B. Raghu vs. C. Usha Rani & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice B S Bhanumathi
Case No.: Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2072/2008
Advocate for the Appellants: Mr. Navuluru Krishna Sai
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. V Veerabhadra Chary
Picture Source :
