HYDERABAD: As per law, even a private place to which members of public have a right of access — in spite of being permissive, limited, restricted or regulated — shall be held as a ‘public place’. In a case before the High Court, the appellant-claimant challenged the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which held that the place of the subject accident i.e. within the compound wall of Raj Bhavan (Governor’s office) is a private place and dismissed the claim against the concerned insurance company.
Definition of ‘public place’ under Section 2 (34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 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. In other words, even a private place to which the public at large have a right of access in any manner whatsoever would also fall in the realms of ‘public place’.
The right of access may require oral or written permission; by tickets, passes or badges; or with the payment of a fee. The user may be restricted generally or to a particular purpose or purposes. What is necessary is that the place must be accessible to members of the public and be available for their use, enjoyment, avocation et alia.
Even the grant of compensation in his favour is meagre, the appellant pointed out and prayed the court to fasten the liability to pay the compensation on the insurance company.
On the day of the incident, the appellant-claimant and his wife along with others went to Raj Bhavan for a meeting with the Governor with regard to an organisation’s social work. The said meeting concluded by 8.30 pm and all the delegates came out of the meeting hall. When they were standing a little distance away from the offending jeep, all of a sudden the driver started the vehicle and drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit his wife. When she was shifted to the nearest hospital, the doctors declared her brought dead.
The counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the compound of Raj Bhavan is not a private place since many government officials perform their official duties there. The office of the Governor of a State is a public office and as such, the place from where the Governor performs his official duties is deemed to be a public place. The tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim against the insurance company, he argued.
On the other hand, the standing counsel for respondent insurance company contended that the insurance coverage is valid only in case of occurrence of accident in a public place. Even the claimant had initially admitted that the subject accident place is a private place. Considering all these aspects, the tribunal rightly dismissed the claim against the insurance company and granted just and reasonable amount as compensation. After hearing the case and perusing the material on record and various court judgments, Justice Shameem Akhter held that even a private place, to which the public at large have a right of access in any manner whatsoever, would fall within the realms of ‘public place’.
Thus, when a private place is made accessible to the members of the public, though restricted or regulated, the only plausible conclusion that could be drawn is that such private place would amount to ‘public place’ as defined under Section 2 (34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the judge noted.
As for the instant case, the judge said that the subject accident took place within the compound wall of Raj Bhavan which was accessible to members of the public, though permissive, limited, restricted or regulated. Further, no rebuttal evidence has been cited on behalf of the insurance company to show that the entry into Raj Bhavan was restricted or obstructed as on date of the accident.
In absence of the same, the Court is unable to agree with the the tribunal’s conclusion that the subject place is not a ‘public place’. The judge held that the subject accident took place in a ‘public place’ and that the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability to paying compensation in the present case.
The judge allowed the appeal by modifying the tribunal order enhancing the compensation amount. While disposing of the case, the judge made it clear that the respondent-insurance company is jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.