Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bihari vs M/S Singhal & Company on 28 October, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27241
1 MA-770-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 28th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 770 of 2006
BIHARI AND OTHERS
Versus
M/S SINGHAL & COMPANY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anand Raguwanshi- Advocate for appellants.
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal- Advocate for respondent No. 3.
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants-claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation and assailing the Award dated 22.04.2006
passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Vidisha (hereinafter referred to as "Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No.
24/2005, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( in short '' MV Act'') for compensation
of Rs.6,80,000/- on account of the death of Prakash (son of appellant Nos.1
and 2) was dismissed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on
25.09.2004, at about 6:00 p.m., near Dholkhedi, under Reliance Construction
Petrol Pump, Vidisha-Basoda Road, a crane bearing registration number
MPN-5605, owned and operated by "Pawan Crane," was being used at the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27241
2 MA-770-2006
site. Respondent No.2, while operating the said crane in a rash and negligent
manner, suddenly lifted a heavy object, due to which the side wall of a pit
collapsed. The pit was filled with gravel, ballast, and sand, and several
labourers working inside the pit got buried. Prakash, the son of appellant
Nos.1 and 2, died on the spot. An FIR was lodged at Police Station Vidisha,
and a case under Section 304 of the IPC was registered vide Crime No.
634/2004. Postmortem was conducted, witnesses were examined, and charge
sheet was filed before the competent Court. The appellants-claimants
thereafter filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking
compensation of Rs.6,80,000/- from the respondents. The respondents denied
the claim by filing written statements. The Claims Tribunal framed issues
and recorded evidence of both sides. After hearing the parties, the learned
Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the accident did not occur
due to the use of the crane in a public place and that the death of Prakash
occurred as a result of the caving-in of the pit, rather than an "accident
involving a motor vehicle."
3. Aggrieved by the impugned Award, the appellants-claimants have
approached this Court contending inter alia that the impugned Award is
contrary to the settled principles of law and the beneficial object of the
Motor Vehicles Act, which is a social welfare legislation. The learned
Tribunal erred in holding that the crane does not fall within the definition of
a "motor vehicle" merely because it was used for lifting goods. The
interpretation of "public place" under Section 2(34) of the MV Act by the
Tribunal is erroneous and unduly narrow. The deceased was aged 22 years
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27241
3 MA-770-2006
and was the sole earning member of his family, working as a labourer under
a contractor. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence in proper
perspective and wrongly dismissed the claim petition. In support of
contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ms. Mallama and Others, Misc. First Appeal
No.6615/2014 (MV-I), decided on 17.12.2024 (NC 2024 KHC 52058).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company
supported the impugned Award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record of the
Claims Tribunal.
6. On perusal of impugned Award, it is evident that the Claims
Tribunal has framed the following issues:-
"1. या दनांक 25-09-2004 को े न चालाक अना. ं 2 ारा लापरवाह
से े न को उठा द , जससे ग ढे म ह दब गया और या उसक वह ं दब
कर मृ यु हो गयी ?
2. या उ दघ ु टना म काश क मृ यु के िलए आ.गण ितपूित पाने के
पा है , य द हॉ तो कतनी व कससे ने ?
3. या करण मो. ह .ए ट के अंतगत चलने यो य नह ं है , य द हॉ तो
भाव ?
4. या सुसंगत दनांक को अना. ं 1 एवं 2 ारा दघ
ु टना का रत े न को
बीमा कंपनी क पॉिलसी क शत के व चलाया जा रहा था , य द हॉ
तो भाव ?
5. सहायता एवं यय ?
6. या करण म प कार असंयोजन का दोष आयत होता है , य द हॉ तो
भाव ?"
7. On perusal of the impugned Award, it is seen that the Claims
Tribunal framed issues and gave a finding in para 15 and 16 of its award in
regard to Issue No.1 based on FIR (Ex. P/1) and statements of witnesses,
that labourers were working in a pit, and while the crane was lifting a tank,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27241
4 MA-770-2006
the wall of the pit collapsed, burying Prakash and causing his death. The
evidence of the claimants' witnesses, including Kishan and Bihari, supported
the FIR, whereas the version of non-applicants' witness Vinay Chauhan was
found inconsistent. It is noteworthy that this factual finding has not been
challenged by the Insurance Company by way of cross-appeal or separate
appeal, and hence, the same stands unchallenged. The Claims Tribunal,
however, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the alleged incident
did not occur in a "public place," and therefore, the provisions of Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act were not attracted.
8. Section 147 of the MV Act- Requirement of policies and limits of
liability is reproduced as under:-
(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy
of insurance must be a policy which--
(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and
(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy
to the extent specified in sub-section (2)--
(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of
the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the
goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or
damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of
the use of the vehicle in a public place;
(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a
public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the
vehicle in a public place.
9. Section 147 of the MV Act deals with the requirements of policies
and limits of liability. For an insurer to be held liable, the accident must arise
out of the use of a motor vehicle in a public place.
10. On perusal of aforesaid provisions of Section 147 of the MV Act,
it is evident that if the claimants are liable to prove that the accident was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27241
5 MA-770-2006
occurred at a public place, then they are entitled to get compensation.
11. Section 2(34) of the MV Act defines "public place" as under:-
"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."
12. In the present case, the place of incident is under
Dholkhedi Reliance Construction Petrol Pump, Vidisha- Basoda Road.
Now, the question arises as to whether the spot/site is covered under public
place or private place ?
13. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Jamnabai
and Others reported in 2001(4) MPHT 293(DB), the Division Bench of this
Court at Indore has held that definition of ''public place'' has to be construed
liberally, broadly and pragmatically and not in a pedantic and narrow sense
with a view to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the same.
14. In the present case, admittedly, the alleged incident occurred under
construction of Dholkhedi Reliance Petrol Pump Vidisha- Basoda Road
where deceased Prakash and other labourers were filling sand in pit/ditch.
Meanwhile, the driver of crane (respondent No.2) suddenly lifted/ pulled up
in a negligent and careless manner due to which the side wall of pit caved in
and pit/ditch was filled with gravel/ ballast and sand including construction
material due to which, labourers including deceased Prakash working inside
the pit/ ditch got buried due to which Prakash (deceased) died on spot.
15. The contention of learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that
the alleged incident was occurred inside the campus of construction area
which is a private place and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27241
6 MA-770-2006
pay compensation to the claimants and it is further submitted definition of
''private place'' is not covered under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act.
16. So far as the aforesaid contention of Insurance Company is
concerned, on going through the definition of Section 2(34) of the MV Act,
''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 the passengers are picked or set down by a stage
carriage. This definition is wide enough to cover not only public places but
also provide places to which the public have right to access or is
thoroughfare or not.
17. Considering the place of incident in the present case, it is a
construction area of under Dholkhedi Reliance Construction Petrol Pump,
Vidisha- Basoda Road, it is accessible to all public where it is made
accessible to workmen, supervisors, managers, engineers, loaders and
unloaders of the construction materials and transportation of lorries inside
the construction area for the purpose of construction of Petrol Pump is
amounting to accessible to public. In the present case, those types of persons
who are invovled in the construction activities are part of public, the site in
which the accident occurred is not fully occupied for private purpose of the
construction site. It is still at the stage of construction and the workers
including the deceased Prakash are accessible to the pit for constructing the
petrol pump, therefore, it is accessible to the public. Under these
circumstances, the accident occurred. Therefore, the said construction area is
to be construed as a ''public place'' as per section 2(34) of the MV Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27241
7 MA-770-2006
18. From the above discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court,
the alleged site/ place of incident is still under construction of
Dholkhedi Reliance Petrol Pump, Vidisha- Basoda Road and is open to
public, which means part of public who are workmen, supervisors, engineers
etc. etc. were involved in the construction activities, therefore, it is
amounting to accessible to public till the construction is completed and
handing over in all respects to the owner(s) of the said site and the site is to
be construed as accessible to public.
19. So, this Court holds that the construction area of Dholkhedi
Reliance Petrol Pump, Vidisha-Basoda Road, being accessible to persons
engaged in the construction activity, is a "public place" within the meaning
of Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The crane involved in the
incident qualifies as a "motor vehicle" under the Act. The accident arose out
of the use of the said motor vehicle. Therefore, the claim petition filed by the
appellants-claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was
maintainable. The contrary findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal
are, therefore, set aside.
20. On perusal of the impugned Award, it is observed that the Claims
Tribunal did not quantify the compensation amount payable to the claimants.
Consequently, the matter is remitted to the learned Claims Tribunal, Vidisha,
for fresh adjudication on the question of quantum of compensation and
liability, after considering the evidence already on record and affording an
opportunity of hearing to both parties.
21. The Claims Tribunal shall decide the matter afresh and pass an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27241
8 MA-770-2006
Award in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of the certified copy of this order.
22. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, the present
Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The impugned Award dated 22.04.2006
passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Vidisha, in Claim Case No.24/2005, is hereby set aside.
23. The matter is remanded to the learned Claims Tribunal for decision
afresh as directed above.
24. Let a copy of this order along-with complete record be sent to the
Claims Tribunal immediately.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
*VJ*
