Madras High Court
M/S.National Insurance Company ... vs K.Ammaiyappan : 1St on 6 September, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 06.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
C.M.A(MD)No.794 of 2016
and
CMP(MD)No.7661 of 2016
M/s.National Insurance Company Limited,
Karur through its Manager,
Branch Office Rasi Plaza,
No.63, West Pradhakshnam Road,
Karur. : Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.K.Ammaiyappan : 1st Respondent/Petitioner
2.K.P.Thamilsevan : 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award, dated
11.01.2016 made in MCOP No.109 of 2014 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Court), Karur.
For Appellant : Mr.J.S.Murali
For 1st Respondent : Mr.V.Balaji
For 2nd Respondent : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
JUDGMENT
Challenge made in this appeal is to the award, dated
11.01.2016 made in MCOP No.109 of 2014 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Court), Karur.
2.The short facts of the case is that on 17.10.2013, the
claimant being the owner of the Lorry TN-28-K-5547 visited the
Lorry Carriage by name S.Shanmugam Lorry Labour Works
Carriage at Ezhil Nagar, Covai Road, Karur and at about 15.00
hours, when the claimant was standing near the Tools Box of the
said Lorry, at that time, the driver of the above Lorry on duty
without noticing the claimant, suddenly, negligently and carelessly
had driven the Lorry and as a result of which, the said Lorry
dashed upon the claimant and the claimant fell down and had
sustained severe injury on his left thigh and immediately, he was
taken to Appolo Loga Hospital, Karur and after first aid, he was
referred to Ganga Medical Centre Hospital (P) Limited,
Coimbatore, for better treatment. A claim petition was filed by the
claimant, seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the injuries
sustained by him in the accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3.The claim was opposed by the appellant Insurance
Company disputing the manner of accident and their liability to pay
compensation.
4.The Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the driver of
the offending vehicle caused the accident and awarded
compensation of Rs.3,55,600/- together with interest @ 7.5% p.a
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/2nd
respondent argued that the accident had occurred in a workshop
and the workshop is not a public place and further, the claimant is
the owner of the vehicle and he is not a 3rd party and hence, the
Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
7.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent/claimant argued that the claimant left his Lorry in the
workshop and being the owner of the Lorry, he visited the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
carriage and was supervising the work being done in the said Lorry
and when the claimant was standing near the backside of the Lorry,
at that time, the driver of the offending vehicle negligently and
careless had driven the Lorry and as a result of which, the said
Lorry hit against the claimant and he sustained injuries and the
workshop is a public place, since the public have access to it and
the claimant is a 3rd party and hence, the Insurance Company is
liable to pay the compensation. For that, the learned counsel
appearing for the 1st respondent/claimant submitted the following
decisions:-
(1)(1997)1 ALT 475 ( Chinna Gangappa
Vs.B.Sanjeeva Reddy);
(2)(1991)1 RLW (Raj)242 (United India
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Roop
Kanwar);
(3)(2013)3 AIR (Kar)(R) 666 (K.Ramesh
Vs. B.Amarnath & another); and
(4)(2020)0 ACJ 2202 (United India
Insurance Company Limited and others Vs.
Vaneeta and others).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8.Further, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent/claimant by quoting the decision reported in (1997)1
ALT 475 (Chinna Gangappa Vs.B.Sanjeeva Reddy) argued that
in the said decision in para 6 to 8, the Andhra Pradesh High Court
held as follows:-
“6. Section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
defines 'public place'. It reads:-
"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."
7. Our High Court in Lanka Sarma v.
Rejendra Singh and Ors., held that:-
"Where the coolies were hired for
loading and unloading stones to be delivered
at dam site and accident occurred near the
dam site, the place of accident would have to
be considered as one falling within the
definition of "public place" though it belonged
to the Public Works Department as the
workmen constituted public and as such, the
place was a "public place".
The words "other place which is not a
thoroughfare" cannot be interpreted
according to ejusdem generis rule, because
they are negative in nature. A place over
which a vehicle can pass and which is yet not
a thoroughfare can only refer to a private
place made fit for plying of the motor
vehicle."
It was further held that:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A reading of Section 95 would clearly
show that it is within the contemplation of the
Statute that a third party insurance should
cover a liability that might arise out of
Workmen's Compensation Act. Under the
Workmen's Compensation Act, a liability
might arise even though the accident took
place in a so called private place so long that
accident took place in the course of
employment. This part of Section 95 clearly
shows that it would not be a correct
interpretation of Section 95 to hold that third
party compulsory insurance need not cover
an accident that occurred on a factory
premises. This clear implication of an express
provision of law cannot be denied by
reference to the Explanation appended
to Section 95. The purpose of a legal
explanation is not to enact but to explain. It is
merely clarificatory of the provisions.
Claims for compensation made against
the insurance companies by the dependents
of the workmen killed or injured within the
premises of a factory cannot be defeated by
the insurance companies on the ground that
the general public have no right of access to
such factory premises."
8. A Full Bench of Bombay High Court
in Pandurang Chimaji Agale and Anr. v. New
India Life Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.,
(F.B.) relying on the above decision of this
Court and also some other decisions held that
"The term 'public place', is a term of art, the
same having been defined specifically by Sub-
clause (24) of Section 2 of the Act. The first
thing to remember with regard to the
definition is that it is an inclusive one.
Secondly, it in terms makes it clear that any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
road, street, way or other place, whether a
thoroughfare or not, is a public place for the
purposes of the Act, the only condition being
that the public should have a right of access
to it. Thirdly, the expression used in the
definition is "a right of access" and not
"access as of right". Lastly, when it states that
any place or stand at which passengers are
picked up or set down by a stage carriage, is
a public place, it shows that it is not so much
concerned with the ownership of the place as
with its user. The definition of "public place"
under the Act is, therefore, wide enough to
include any place which members of public
use and to which they have a right of access.
The right of access may be permissive,
limited, restricted or regulated by oral or
written permission by tickets, passes or
badges or on payment of fee. The use may be
restricted generally or to particular purpose
or purposes. What is necessary is that the
place must be accessible to the members of
public and be available for their use,
enjoyment, avocation or other purpose.
Hence, all places where the members of
public have an access, for whatever reasons,
whether as of right or controlled in any
manner whatsoever, would be covered by the
definition of "public place" in Section 2(24) of
the Act."
9.In this case, it is an admitted fact that the claimant left his
Lorry in the workshop and the accident occurred when the
claimant visited the workshop for supervising his Lorry and at that
time, the driver of the Lorry drove the Lorry rashly and negligently.
It is admitted that the place of occurrence is a workshop. There
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
was no restriction for the claimant as well as the public to enter
into the workshop. In this place, the members of the public have
right of access. Hence, there is public access to the workshop.
Hence, it is held that the place of occurrence is a public place and
not a private place. Therefore, the argument put forth on the side
of the appellant stating that the place of occurrence is not a public
place is not at all acceptable.
10.In this case, the official of the Insurance Company was
examined as RW1. RW1 deposed that the claimant is the owner of
the Lorry and hence, he is not a 3rd party and hence, they are not
liable to pay the compensation. Further, it is an admitted fact that
the claimant is the owner of the Lorry and hence, he is not a 3rd
party in respect of the accident. On the side of the appellant
Insurance Company, the copy of the Insurance Policy was produced
before the tribunal and it was marked as Ex.R4. On perusal of R4, it
reveals that additional premium was paid for the owner, for
claiming compensation at that time of accident. In Ex.R4, for the
injury, the victim is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. In
this case, the claimant is not a 3rd party and he is the owner of the
vehicle. Hence, as per Ex.R4, the claimant is entitled to Rs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2,00,000/- as compensation. But the tribunal wrongly came to the
conclusion that the owner of the vehicle is a 3rd party and hence,
the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and
awarded Rs.3,55,600/-, which is liable to be set aside.
11.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed. The impugned award, dated 11.01.2016 passed in MCOP
No.109 of 2014, is set aside. The appellant Insurance Company is
directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the 1st
respondent/claimant together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.
from the date of petition till realization, within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such
compliance, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the modified
compensation with accrued interest and costs. The appellant
Insurance Company is entitled to get back the excess amount paid
by them from the tribunal in the manner known to law. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
06.09.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for
official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To,
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
Additional Sub Court, Karur.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.KRISHNAVALLI.J
er
C.M.A(MD)No.794 of 2016
06.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
