Master Balalingaraju vs Smt Jayanthi R on 9 September, 2010

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Master Balalingaraju vs Smt Jayanthi R on 9 September, 2010

Bench: L.Narayana Swamy

 

A .E1'_;-..S_f'ViT.JAYAi\iTi44§I.R.

  A  V E _ C.¥ji'AM'RAJ PET, BANGALORE.

'E4."=D'2'.vEM/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE co. LTD.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT  _
DATED THIS THE 9"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER-{A4231EQ:  _ 3 ,4   A 
BEFORE    A» Q  ._ E A
THE HON'BLE MR.3usTIcE~:T,,'NARA3fA'A:A   
M.F.A.NO.2244 oEA2f§)o7kk (Mv*>  

M.F.A.NO.1ETQS Ci_F 2ooA4:z%':w)

M.F.A.NO.2244/2007 V

 

BETWEEN:    

MAsTER.BALALINsAR_A_Ju  A
S/O. THAMMAN.NEA;L..._ '   
AGED ABOUT12 YEARS,   
REPRESENTED Bv+1.1s=ff=.E_ A  A _
FATHER SR1.L{THAMMANN~A-AS---.___  
NATURAL GUARDIAN ' N  A 
R/AT.No.11,. E10?" EViA_IN',~60 FEET ROAD,
3 . C, ROA D, }.MAHALAXMI«PU_R_AE4,
BAfNGALOP...E'«8.,E}.:  ..

 A  ,    _ ...APPELi_ANT
(BY s~R.I;'+§._v'Es\t;K;AT*E' G_o.wDA, ADVOCATE)

E _ " 'WIEE"GF4_P.R'AVI, MAJOR,
 PROP.~.QF}M/S.DALAPATHl--
 BQREWELLS, NO.8,
 sss BUILDING,

 REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL MANAGER,

L

 



I'-..)

REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.l-44,
SUBBARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE.

(BY SRI.A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV. FOR R-2

 

...RE--S§-PO,N"O'ENTS--,.A ~

SRI.V.LAXMINARAYANA, ADV. AS AMIGOS C'U'RIA1E,FOR'j'R-2) "

MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF IMC{ACTA1'IAGAIP-!SN,._,,,I$.§E

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED_ 18/1&0/G6 PASSED" IN'. M"v'Cﬂ
NO.1805/O5 ON THE FILE OF XVIADDL. JUDGE, M'EM'B_VE'R,..P'1ACT,"A

COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, METROPOLITAN BANGALORE
(SCCH--14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE,_ CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND .S_EEt<ING'j, VEENI-iANCE'MENT OF
COMPENSATION.    ,

M.F.A.NO.l505/2007 mv)   

BETWEEN:

REGIONAL MANAG_ER,.   ~
NATIONAL INSIURAN-CE  LTD-.,  
REGIONAL OFFICE, 'S.£JB_HA,RAM....___  
COMPLEX, 14-4, MG'R_OA'.,b~,.   
BANGALORE--56.o 0.01.-A " "  A

A I .- APPELLANT

(BY SRI.A.N.AKRISI¥tN.A,Svv'API'Y, ADV. )

1. MASTER;EA:_;A,LIINGA~RAIu

  S/O. TH.AMMANN'A--,L,1,:=
 "AGED AB()__UT_1~3 YEARS,
*LSIN::E MINOR,',REPRESENTED BY HIS
'' ~N,AT__uPAL GUARDIAN
, FATHER SPLL.THAMMANNA
  'R/AT§'i'.{O.--11., 107" MAIN, 60 FEET ROAD,
 'J.,,C;...ROAD, MAHALAXMIPURAM,

'a3AN.GAL.ORE~86.

   --SP/ET.3AYANTHI. R
 WIFE OF P.RAVI, AGE: MA3OR,

 



ivis:CO'mpensa.t_iOn_;ﬂE30th these appeafs are filed against the
_ "'j'uirj'AgIn'entggandﬂsaward passed in M V C NO.18O5/2005 On the
it  C T, Bangaiore. The Tribunai by its judgment
 dated 18.10.2006 awarded a Compensation Of

H4"'~.ih_RS>.'i;89,6OO.0O with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a.

PROP. OF DALAPATHI BOREWELLS,
#7, SSS BUILDING, CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE.  :_,_ 
: RE.SI2ON'OE"NTS'«I 
(BY SRI.K.VENKATE GOWOA, ADV. FOR R1) _    , 

NO.18O5/2OO5 ON THE FILE OF THE. ";><._\/I A:D3DI:_:.' "Ju'O"GE_."g
MEMBER, MACT METROPOLITAN AREA, BANGALORE, ('TSCvC~H'--'14),"'
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RsTL.I1;a9,OOOys_ WITH 'COSTS &

SIMPLE INTEREST AT 6% PA. FRQM-».Tt'}E_v DAT'E--.QAF_f'ETITION
TILL REALISTION.   'I 

THESE APPEALS HAVING3EE'N~i?+EA§R._O RESERVE FOR
JUDGMENT AND COMING ONT-FQTR RRONOUOCNCEMENT BEFORE
THE COURT ,TO_D'_-/-\Y, 1.COURT'f_"».._QELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:  , .    V

 --------

These hapgeaiis. the Insurance Company and the Claimant V_'qu.e.StiO.ni'n.g the judgment: and award passed bi-gasthe-IT.Ci'a,.iAms HTri'b"unai On the ground Of liabiiity and the '"'a.'p'p,e.a'I* the claimant for enhancement Of <1 Since both these appeals arise out of the ctiyiriimon judgment and award, both the appeals are common judgment.

2. The appeiiant who is the Inslurarice Corri'Apa»ny A No.1505/2007 has chalienged--v..:t'he oidei onj".=tVh'e;VVg'reund it that the Tribunal had enitertain the petition filed under Section Vehicle Act, 1988 hereinafter short, when the accident place by use of a motor vehicieiiiv been insured u/s 147 of thezA".§c'tV is not entitfed for compensation_froini-the" insurance company on the ground that. it/vh._ere the accident occurred is a private piacefwhich"=g"pe_sVAV.i":co'ntrary to the requirement of Section V",;-giVV4V7_of the"--Act:.. The accident according to the claimant is in of.'_a i/ehicie where it was in a stationary capacity. 'aspects have not been considered by the Tribunai. A"gfvfurthieiriithe injured was standing in the terrace of his house is not a pubiic piace for the purpose of provisions of < which passengers are picked up or set clown by a stage carriage".

9. It is submitted that the defin;it.i.0_n clause~:of'V'p:i'bylsic~t_it place also defines that where any resulted may be death, he must~h"avse a"'right_:of in * 6' order to claim compensation fromlf any person has no right of access an injury by an accident of the 2(34) and Section 146 & the liability of' the

10. The xrri.ot~orr: claims tribunal has been cons.ti'tut.ed~ ;_und.er S"e'cvti.or'1 165 of the At. It has got jurisi:j'_ictio"nu.ftoi.."'e.nt*ertain claim petitions for awarding :7.6':""'c'ompen's.ation. u/s 166, 140 and 163--A of the act only an accident has taken place in a public place. Under of the Act, the Tribunal gets jurisdiction to compensation only when the victims expire. < Sections 2(34), 146 and 147 contain the phrase 'pubiic place'.

11. In support of the submissions, the for the Insurance Company has reiiec:?;':up:'C:>_Ti the 1970 AC] 44 where the High com ormadras :t_hat'T;th'eV:X criteria is whether the pubiic haveiha:rigghtiiofiiagcvcesvs to the piace and not mereiy access. By referring a judgment. ti/s., Trafalgar Insurance Compari-tyﬁg and another judgment ihi.5uggie9.._;f';fa~irIihi<ri;:g:(1941)1 KB 198 and Chuttan v. State (195«=:3;=}t'_"4{\ii,V. v. Dohana Jamnadas, 1961 Guj. 182 and State v.

chesiahrsecetrichii(1966) M.L.J. (ch) 742: AIR 1967 i i;er.1oeﬁe; intevripreting the Motor Vehicie Act 1939 Section ..j'_g95(_'1.)'(b) ancii9Ei(2) of old Act, accident took piace inside {the of a factory, public had no right of access . the insurance company could be heid iiable. It is Viiiiheicii 'no' and further held that insurance company can take '< up the defence that it is not liable because of the place where the accident took place, was not a public place.

12. Further relying upon 1999 AC! 1520 1, the learned counsel for the Insuranced:Comvpgarnf submitted that in the light of the present case on hand where the liability. fasteneAd' Insurance co., though the accidenvttttakes pVl"a-cenbt in a public place for which access, the same is arbitrary, not in..Fi'CcoI'dAa:.nc"e".witljr the provisions of law the Judgment of the Supreme V to set aside the ie'ar_ned'wc'oéunse| for the claimant submitted that the part of the Insurance Company to be"'reje.ctedf"'for the reason that the Act is meant for le.g__lsia't'ion and it cannot be interpreted in a very strict 'V""V."V..h:a4r;ne.r'in:order to disentitle the claimant, a victim of the kl"..__m'e:tor"vehic|e accident. He has submitted, in number of '< judgments of this Court and also ii-lon'ble Supreme Court, compensation has been awarded where the accident'-«has taken place both in public place and also private 14, In view of the fact that in order L question raised in these appeals,_i'it interpretation, court requested Iearned"'se'nior c»ov'un.,sel Sgriv Lakshminarayana as an Amicus was kind enough to accept the same~~.._and' s_ubj_initteLd.;'asyp follows:

15. In Section_.'.2_(34}-"'oi'.--the place' has been defined%'to"crrri7eVan:¥'fVa' strelevt, way or other place, whether a th'oro'uc;h'fa'.re.folr"'not,"to which the public have a right of access, 'incluldess any place or stand at which p'asse'n.ge'i's picked or set down by a stage carriage.

The sa_icl"__defin'ityi_on'u'is an inclusive definition, not restricted any pa"rticv-ullasctway, which also covers 'any place'. These 'Vénycluides any place' in the definition qualify to cover place also. The words 'other place" means and other than the public place and further the very definition not excludes the private place. Hitherto both the K the Act. Insurance is a must against third party risk in order to use it in a public place. Hence the learned counsel submitted that since the word 'public place' is definition and that cannot be restricted__..bv4_i':i~.gVivi:iio conservative interpretation which woul(l..4p'gj.eiea:t_.' and objects of the Act.

17. Sections 165 and K166 confervljjpurvisdiction on the Tribunal also doesthe public and private place. povvlef the State Government _ A rnore Motor Accident Claims Tribu'na!l"for' adjudicating upon the claims for:'cocn'ip'eri~sa't'i'c}ninillrespect of accidents involving jvlbodily to, persons arising out of the use or damages to any property of a vvfthvird party svoilariising, or both. When these sections are .1it gives scope for accidents that are taken 6.6"»-4"_ip|_ac.e in public place but do not exclude the private place. xi.

18. Section 147 of the Act which is in respe_c__t_: of requirements of poiicy and iimits of iiabiiity. Exp|an"a'ti'o"ne:to the said Section refers to public piace. The in order to widen the liability is rec.'u'iAreci« tohb-;e Section 2(34) of the Act. What is re'qui'red ujncierv 147 is the use of the vehicie V'c»~f'V. is only a testifying factor accident has taken piace in a pubiic p|ace..:C?~ provisions of the Act itself. the public and private restrict either by the appellant's 'courts of iaw, which goes contrary to theS.._prov:i'si_ons" Act. It is submitted that i:ri'especf;Li_jiize'vlot the °pia.c.e.:wherever the accident is taken place *LIse..4of;m:ot«or vehicie is to be construed as a public A "'~....pviace in_orcier"to_ render fuiiest justice to the provisions of and aiso to the Act.

-- ""i"he facts of the case are that on 12.9.2004 when aboiyiiwas standing on the terrace of his house, at that time iifthe driver of Sorry i\£o.KAO5 MC 2577 entered the ,3 'K :

lb neighbouring site for the purpose of rigging the boreweii and in the running conditions, the rigging pipe openVed.:_wii_th rash and negiigent in a careiess manner and precautionary measures and due toMnegiigenit-~aCt'"'of';tiie4 driver and the supervisor of the borevkieligi «it 'we~n_t' ou'it.._'ci~.fj the rigging machine and fell he sustained injuries. The accidenti.--resgLi.it'e.d in amputation of his right thumb. Hence he"4'pre'feireiiiva.:civavirn"petition for the negligent act on t.h«eLp_art oi} the vehicie and ciaimed that thciiiaccident a'ris-e's«oi;.tV'ogf motor vehicie, which attracts the"..provisio'ns'- 'i

20. The oLi.estvioVn__toir_ "consideration that feii before the T:,r-ibunaivaund__Ta!so bei*or.e__itvhis Court is whether the accident causeciaiin._a=._p'rope'rty belongs to an individual, a private iti'~.....p.ropertypvvheireiinrvvhiie rigging the boreweli by the iorry causeicii the accident, whether it satisfies the of the Act for the purpose of awarding "comp_ehsation.

Y 20 contrary" was held to apply to any agreement whether made before or alter the Act. In Keshaw v. Jairam, H11 86 Bonn 123 the Eknnbay +ughMjhfV°e* Court refused to apply the ejusderrf generis principie in interpreting_--"th"e::'_".7 ' word "any". From these:=.;jeCiAsi;%nSa,,.'it' ' ' is clear that the wordrV'§any,;.__5'fh'ou|d 2 given a meaning as wieeV:"'as possi.bl'ei'n the context. Hence int-th--f§r_:"-éi'se before us, the words" V'a{any__ f{--w.a'rdVru,';' _ the Municipal Boro--u§.;_h" _ be understooﬁ.-tofrneiaii ""ev_e'ry'v--.w:ard of the ipalé . y Boro-ug h ._'" Fu rthe r the re isA'rnaterial'd:.iVffeVr"e:nc.e" in the language V_emp|oye'cl._';inW_S*."n11A(1) and that ._':_"3'«:.em'ployed*in .... ._Sv.11A(2). The former '*y_Savstﬁat ."r:'7fEyery person whose name is in the list of voters referred to in S.11 f"=»,_Ash'a|l be qualified to vote at the

-'election of a member for the ward to which such list pertains", X' whereas the latter provision says "qualified to be elected in any ward of the Municipal Boroughz.

If the Legislature intended that?"

only persons who are registered~i**a.sf..ff'« voters in the list of voters to a ward should be candid4ate'sy_only.b'j_;3A*. «. " ' that ward, then firsVtl~yj't_hereV' need to have twoAy_.__d':i'Ffei*went .'SU-bf sections, namelt-j.'il"s_ub_~seicti"orus{1)y and (2) in section 1_1eA.._ 'Stub-s;'e.c'ti<5n. 3(1) could §ha'ye'-- been the folIowir.§tl.man,n%erI;y:ytce.tT t _ ."AE'yery_V3'per*so"n..__wh'ose name is in the _list% of__.v'i)t.ersy:l:"'referred to in 8.11 V_sVhallftin'less-.disquialified under this Act 0th'er....l.a.w for the time being in __fovArce,4:"~--b_e qualified to vote and be elected at the election of_.~a,vlrnember for the ward to which such list pertains".

AA Vb"-Secondly, in S.11A(2) instead of the ' "words "qualified to be elected at the election for any ward of the Municipal Borough" the words "qualified to be elected at the election of a member for 'fl the ward to which such list pertains". Should have been used. The Legislatures are deemed to be precise in the language employed by theme." Maxwell on interpretation of Statut»esf:~.,:"«l...' « (Eleventh Edition) obserylesgiiat;lpgage 33.1.:

"It has been that, when precision y_.isﬂ'~req.uired,"«no safer rule can befollowe-dl'.th_an"always to call the sam'eV_V'th,ir;'g by--"'~tvh'eT..':Vs'ame name. atgall erve'nts,.j_'~r.e'aVsonab|e to pr;'est'i_m£ev- meaning is _' of the same e5<pVression."iA..n».'ev,e'r«y=" part of an Act. _Accolr'din'gly',--. ascertaining the meaning"t'o..b£~3.attached to a particular it w:or.d--.,iin~«.a section of an Act, though the '-"___%.l'pro'p,er.A'.l',course would seem to be to A asc«e.rt.aAiln that meaning if possible from consideration of the section itself, it Vllkyet, if the meaning cannot be so "hascertained other sections may be looked at to fix the sense in which the word is there used."

This rule of interpretation must have greater efficacy when we have to deaf with words lound in one and the same section. The first and the§r"'i foremost rule of construction of____'a~--V.. statute is the rule J'""of'~y_|i'--ter;a!:if. L"

construction. It is only wh'en7t_h'at - fails, other rules of"ic'onstruction_a're'{_f-v- availed of. As i""ovbse_rved'.:'i'n Jugalkishore Saraf v.'_:h'IVi./'.As".Ryaiiyucottovn Co., Ltd., (s) AIR¢ 19rsoS:'scii'r37s_etthe carclinai .f;ru_|e coVns't:ructi'on of staturtesv read_ I e tfavtue' Hiite ra I iy , that n*g:V't§).__'the words used by the K Legisiahtuflreii 't~h:e"i4rV~"ordinary, naturai and grarrimaticawl meaning: if, »»*-i,ho:wever,"*su.Ch a reading ieads to and the words are of another meaning the C_our_t.j'.V*rnay adopt the same; but, if no such alternative construction is it '"«._possible, the Court must adopt the

-- "ordinary rule of literal interpretation.

25. In SR1 BALAGANESAN METALS V. M.N.SHANMUGHAM CHETTY & OTHERS, (1987) 2 SCVC'-J07 Para~18 & 19 it is held that word includes and of or every as well as 'some' or 'one'. The_sa'i_'d._jud'gn1eh'tl throws light on the definition underi;:'the::.A_Ct"«.ano said that when the legislature does notxl'interldiiigoaexcjiudie the private place, the questionviéilof .givi'n'g:l_a': restrictive interpretation is prohibited;-ﬁf _ ._

26. In NEW INDIA ASSUF{A'i\!'CE_'CQ.EVi§?ANY LTD. v. SADANANDZVWIWUKii§i:i.v'§VE%ifjliiéjiaifepoérteldyViin AIR 2009 sc 1788 where the that both under Section 146 8: 147 which. provVid'e'hthathigict Policy and Package Policy it.'Vjcioeslfriotjfesltrvivctwonly in respect of the accident in pub|ii'C._D"lace'vfan_d5fevery person who sustains injury in a v"v:<_Vr'hotor vl'e=hici.ie' accident they would be brought under the oflthis Act for the purpose of benefit. Similar interpretation has been made in "ll"»-._ws."NiAT1oNAL ENSURANCE co. LTD. v. BALJIT KAUR & f *4 ORS, 2004(1) SCALE 124 wherein in Paras--11, 13 & 14 it is held as follows: .

"11. Admittedly, it is incumbent upon__;'_"""" I' V a Court of law to eschew interpretation of a statute"tha't«w'ou|.d':ﬂ"«_ serve to negate its true render the words of"a_vriy_provision superfluous. Nonethele:s«s,,' we merit in the:_""~:ribo.'v'e:.vi's:1,;_t1.rri~issionsA proffered by thellearneicf the respo;n£:l_en{:;.AV"H: the 1994 e.se;e¢tiohi'iVi47 is earlier, the worldgls cohuid be held not to iVii.c'|dudeV"the_ of the goods or V, his '"a._uthori::zed representative V.tl<é~.:éie!.i,_ng the goods vehicle,

-- has now made it clear that construction is no longer ,p"o.ss'il3le. The scope of this rationale it 'A does not however extend to cover the class of cases where gratuitous passengers for whom no insurance policy was envisaged, and for whom no insurance premium was paid, € employ the goods vehicle as a medium of conveyance.

"13. It is pertinent to note that statutory liability enjoined upon owner of the vehicle to c,ompu'!so.rily insure it so as to cover the'«Vl__ia--b:iA'l'ity bind' «. respect of a pers.oTr'.~...V_ who was travelling in a vehicle____p'u..rsuant"toga contract of emp_l_o'/m--en§.vi"ri...__t.e'rm_s of proviso (ii) appended of the in Sectii)'h""_«1Vv5iif?-[of :.Lh__é~~.._19'BS_' Act." The c_h.a_ng'esf" Act vis-

éifvis .' 1 __ Act as rega rd defin i'tiponsiV_."o:f vehicle', 'public _Servic'e V'veh[i.c|e._' and 'stage carriage' hafve_p_a|soV"ahearing on the subject as the concept of any goods "7'.__%i'c"ar'ria_ge}"carrying any passenger or any _f/other person was not c.o_ntemp|ated.

"A"14. In a situation of this nature, the doctrine of suppression of mischief rule as elumbrated in Heydon's case [3 Co Rep 7a, 6 ER 637] shall apply. 'E Such an amendment was made by the Parliament consciously. Having regard to the definition of 'goods carriage' vis-a--vis 'public service'; A' V vehicle', it a clear that whereas ' goods carriage carrying::."Ajj. ' A passenger is not contempla'lt.ed~._underig.1" " A the 1988 Act as the same mu..st*.l:)e, used solely for carrying..t--hev--g'oods;'

28. While making intei**--pVr'eta.tios.jri or phrase in any Act, much emphasis,l*'i'as-- to Vbe.':»g_iy.e_n.::o:'n the aims and objects and{vpu_rposev_o_f'3'«the..:'_Act.. j If an object of the Act requires to render' particular manner for pa.rticu|ar,._c|ass of the court should keep in mind the=__sarne_VVwhile--.yVini:erpreting any clause public need and 7',_public. be upheld. In similar circumstances, wthe'.Supreme'vA.;CVourt in L.I.C OF INDIA 8: ANOTHER v. QC{v):__i\lt~StfAAl¥1ER: t:"oucATIoN AND RESEARCH CENTRE AND reported in AIR 1995 SC 1811, held at para 27 8:

follows:

"27. In the sphere of contractual relations the State, its instrumentality, public authorities or those whose acts~~~--W S' V bear insignia of pubiic element, action to public duty or ob-iigati.on--'_y a_.re"1j enjoined to act in a man'ﬂErf_"ii.ieV. fair;

just and equitable',-«..__Vafter"

objectively all the re'l"e.c_'"va_nt Vo'pt'_i'oiis 1 into consideration and "in; a"=._mannVe'r that is reasonabie;S-..f*rele_vrarit:'and germane _to__ effect'uat;e _thje.ypu'a'p:ose for pubiic andzlin __..Vgjen'eVra'i"" pubiic interest~ii__"a;_nd. not ta ke any ivrreie.va'nt.i__ory 'irr'atio.n;al factors into co nusideratio ~. 2 a rbitra ry in its _decis"ion". ,V|;=.uty>'to"liVact fairly is part of fair" oroceo'ur.e..envisages under Articles 'A Every activity of the public those under public duty or ovbiigva'.tion must be informed by reason 'and guided by the public interest. "28. In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of LJ.P. (1991) 1 SCC 212 : (AIR 1991 SC 537), this Court in paragraph 22 pointed out that 'i the private parties are concerned only with their personal interest but the public authority are expected to act forf" it public good and in public interest. in impact of every action is also on l.17j%l3_bl-:i'c.lV:'' « V V' interest. It imposes lam: «.

obligation and impre"s~s_ w'i-th__ character, the contracts""-mad_e b.'y~t_h'e State or its insitrtimentality,._f""\Iyt is a different matter" of judicial. {in ;re.sp-ec'tl"_j_of' disputes fa l l i ng" a in ntra ctu al ovb|.i.g_a'tiVo'r1s;.;mayjbel'Vl*mo.reW_llimited and in parties may be re'ieVg'ated..V_to:.lfth'e..;_a'dj'udication of their _right"s~ bly'.ro.sor_t"to remedies provided a_djudica..t.i.on of purely contractual d:ispu.te--s,_ However, to the extent, is made on the ground of v__ivo'lal't'i'oln of Article 14 by alleging that "the impugned act is arbitrary, unfair or A unreasonable, the fact that the dispute it also falls within the domain of contractual obligations would not relieve the State of its obligation to comply with the basic requirements of <5 30 Articie 14. To this extent, the obligation is of a pubiic character invariabiy in every case irrespective off" i there being any other right__.e__Q'f.:tV.4vﬁjw.L' obligation in addition th:'ere't'o'.t.v in additional contractuai «.

cannot divest the 'lclVa"i~njant" Vofs_Vt'l5i._e'5.,:""' guarantee under Artic§_ie'-..:1-*l._»_of."no_n.-- arbitrariness at State in any of its Co rpo of ilajg/. no in en u Cattie" F~"_e.e;d-In'dLis_t1ri.es;--"_ (31993)" 1 scc _( Atngsscw 1509 at court held that "the _m'er_efrea'son.a'ble or legitimate _expe"c"ta_tion';.of;a'~~*"citizen may not by beu"a«...d_i_stinct enforceable right, b:ut.yfa'i"l--:i__re to consider and give due it may render the decision avrbitvriary, and this is how the "i'.e_e,uirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of A the principle of nonnarbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due < consideration in a fair decisionwmaking process." In sterling Computers Ltd. v. M. and N. Publications Ltd., (1993_}?r' 9 _ _ 1 scc 445 at Page 464: (1993'.%%':ER.:VV.VVV';rVV. scw 683 at P.697) Para"28',f:t held that even in comrnerci'a,l_ cQ_n1ltrac"t's. 6, where there is a ;3ulol--i_cVe%|em'entt,' .it"~-iys necessary that relevan_t__it-ons.i_derati~--o_ns V? are taken invtoft achcou-nl't"...__'aAnd_ the irrelevant consideratiyont'Vdfisca:rdAe_dl_,"_'.. In Union ('3:!7l{_'- India 1[2v;4..A"'~'vl".i§«/1/s.Graphic 398:

( _1.9_9 AI 7 Co u rt h el d t.hat__eyenVin_r'coritra.ctt.ia'§ matters public authorities_."l{aye*~.ii:to."act fairly; and if __tvheyl'"'fa_iV| ._toA'=do'~"'lso approach under would always be "'~».VVperTm4i:ssib|e because that would violation of Article 14 of the CV__or'isVutTi'tution. The ration in General "Asisurance Society Ltd. v. Chandumull \_i6r;.3ain, (1966) 3 SCRSOG: (AIR 1966 sc " 1644), relied on by the appellants that tests laid therein to construe the terms of insurance contracts ears no relevance to determine the < constitutional consicence of the appellant in fixing the terms and conditions in Table 58 and of their?" b justness and fairness on touchstone of public elernent;

arms of the High Court is «.

with technical rulesloﬁ-.of P.ro.cevdure."*~..;""

The actions __of tl1_e'ﬂ.__E3tvate.,"nits i nstrurnentality,A----..._.'any«'_V: ps,a_:Vb"Eic._'».a'uthority or person whose ilbear' iAi.ns__ignia of pu§l3lii"«s.T:VV:V'_'«law e'1.e'im'en't".j_i~.eo_"rf_:§' public chara'cter jiarze 'V a_mje"nda'_b:i«e to judicial .:v'al'id:ity_,i'of such an on the anvil of Artici'e_ 14.,V_."lNih>iV_le._:e:<ercising the power _.unde"i~ A'riticI*e A226"'lVthe Court would be c:_i.rctiv%msp"éct....t.oAVadjudicate the disputes avArisei;3'é3«.._.Qut of the contract depending "l'.._«o'n7'_~the.1'facts and circumstances in a case. The distinction between "the public law remedy and private law xfield cannot be demarcated with it precision. Each case has to be examined on its own facts and circumstances to find out the nature of the activity or scope and nature of the < 35 furthers the object of the Act, namely to promote thrift and channelise private savings for national use, the same must be preferred to the_;""*"

construction which leads to a con_fii_ci:-.::. d between S.2(e)(iv) andg"S.'Si(.1)'{évE)y."HIV'. he The contention that construction shouid b:e"----.place'd'Von tiié expression 'any policyyilipf iVnsu"ran_hce':' V occurring in ;i;v.)(vi_)e'oVf':t*h.e has] therefore, to be words co.mmuta"ble' 7 oznhilife, like 'jiin_7-t.he.__«-- iigristainti case, Vyfou__lc|ifail.u;rrde'rA.t_S-..5(1)(vi) of the Act and the'v_a'lAu'eV_th_e"i-«eof would qualify for the e'xe,rnption"'irom the charge. 3OV_f5I.ni__i19§35(.'1")=A.E.R» 705 (R v. KANE & OTHERS), a publigc.:p|"avce"vh_as"b:een discussed in the case in deciding the iii's»..,..ﬂ»uestiony__"as tohiijielther Stage and Press Club is open to the whether on payment or not, or whether on the other '_a'c.ce"ss to do is restricted to a particular class or even "rto:'a_,p.c":§rticular class of the public. As such for example as members of ordinary householders famiiy and his '< 36 relations and friends, and the plumber or other tradesmen who comes to do various repairs about the house" irf_Hit_V is restricted to every sort of persons, then of cours;;e","'i*t.'_'i-si a public place, it is a private place. Ifmaccess"wa«--si'_'re'stri*cte.(j "~ to the members of the club or theirv"egue_scts', then :th:eV:"[;.Ia'*c.;g would not be a public place.

31. In AIR 1984 AP 32 v. RAJENEDRA SINGH St OTHER5}I:':vRara:&e.';"tiie..:riojnfVb'le§« Supreme Court referred (1965)i'i that "At common law.

"a public pl'ace""' Var'fpliaceei'*to'"'w'hi'ch the public can and do have access. uIed_i"rectV' matter of law that it matters not avvhevtii.er_t'i1e%_y cAor*ne...tovthat place at the invitation of the they come to it merely with his "li'~......permissiyon, or;"e:I._mileed ....... .. the performance of some small _.%_l.i'_;'f;orrn.ality such as the signing of a visitors' book is required

7.,ptabeforyeirtheyry are allowed access."

_ In AIR 1964 SC 193 (GENERAL MANAGER, E3.E.S.T R"».._VAUt{E)'ERTAKING, v. iviRs.AGives), where it has been held {

34. In AIR 1981 KAR 117 between MADARSAB SAHEBLALA KATTIMANI 81 ANOTHER V. NAGAPPA VITTAPPA KATABUGOL & OTHERS, it is held that jurisdiction of tribunal, not confined to accidents occurring in p_e'bi'iC.V'plaVceA; Owner of vehicle is iegally liable to pay_.~c--o.A4rnpe'ri:sation' awarded to claimant in respect of:'».motor3 happened in private land. Pa'ras--.-f.7, foiiows:

"7. We would firstv:'cQns_ider-"a.bo~éJ;t..the ju':'li*sdl.V§t;il.on':lief t'he'~Tribi:vnavi': 5.110 (1) ~t'ne""lV{'otorf"*\}e*hicles Act, 1939 (hlerelinafter to as the Act) . ~~'fA §ta"t'e"VGovernment may, by «AnvotifiVca:'t'ien in the Official Gazatte, one or more Motor Accidefnts Claims Tribunals L V Uaereinafter referred to as Claims lw§Tribunals) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the prupose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of s( accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, damages to any DI'0l3ertY of a third"

party so arising, or both" y Thus what gives jurisdi=ctio'nIzit Tribunal is that there shoulld occi;r.l..v" 1 bodily injury or deathi--Ja's. a result-o.f l motor accident ori-~~~--cl"an9iages ato. property. It d'oe"5., n.ot{_'say'ihblat the accident should... ...occur _ "p_u'bIic place. "fl-'herefo%re;'V no subsita th'efj-.ec'Gn'teVn--tio*n of the tearn_eci7$g;o_L§nse.I:""for the appellants that not entertain _andllaward_'compensation with regard de'a«th_....of Balappa as a direct _ r_es.ul--t4:of motor accident. learned counsel also argued th_a:.t the accident was not the result of it '"~._rash and negligent driving of the lwjtruck. The evidence on record discloses that Balappa was sleeping in the field as he had taken a herd of sheep to the field. It is the usual K 4{'} practice of villagers to take herd of sheep for manuring purpose in a field and sleep there at night among their" b herd itself. Balappa was sleeping_.l.i!4e_:':"~.vV:'A~lf:' that. The driver of::'Jth'e"..vtr'uc-Rd" I unmindful of the person lA:sl_ele-pding , "

the field, took the truL'c'l<..V_%in the and ran over constitutes m'a.nifest--{lyi.,an__=._act of rashness and negyli-gyenfce ::or~i«..l:t'i:1A5<e:§part of the anid, %h'e.i:1c-«i$_;'~.'t'_ijev:Tfjihuna| was corning to th_e__VVco~n:c"luV<s::i:o_n thievirrravtfcident was the _ _res'L~a!t.VV_f9of . and negligent dravmg of.Vthe§truc::k«.w~and the death of V_l3alap'paV"wajs 'a:_>d~~i'rect result of such "3<.ac;t:idVent',A"as..._E3a»iappa died as a result of:._t--h:e-.injuries sustained in the The learned counsel for the A l"'~._appe|lants, however, strenuously ' "urged that there is nothing to bar the insured from covering wider field than what is contemplated under S.95 of the Act by contract in the policy. In < 4! that view, he submitted that the terms in the policy are not restricted to cover only compensation regardingfr" l personal injury or death arising the use of the motor vehicle o'_fa,third 9' party in a public place. Oit__t:i~:--enother'. «. hand, he submitted'-.th.at it" 'covers compensation with »to b'od.il_ly_ injury or death oif;--a vl"pa__rtAy'«.e_ither in public or priva_te submitted.,;t'h at liable to iind'e.n3i:inify' To avppre'C»ia'téV«:.,__ so avdvanllcpedlp..__i_t«is*..n'ecess_ary to refer to the__ cla uses 'I/lifn.:' "pol icy itself. The _po|icy~is' pwrt-->dL'i.(;e'df.V The Tribunal has referyred At"o~i.t.._._.eIt is true that it is not formtavllfly marked as an exhibit in the the rigour of strict rules of E_yid.e.ir'ace Act is not applicable in "proceedings before the Tribunal. In if fact, the seal of the Court is affixed to the policy and it is clearly written thereon that the policy is produced by the Advocate for the Insurance Company on 3" March 1979 in i 43 policy) the company is not liable, if the accident occurs in a private place. Hence, we are unable to bring ourselves to agree with the?"

observation of the Tribunal, on .

facts of the present * terms in the policy, that . «. "

is not liable to inderri~r::vy:ifygthel' and that the owner andxftvh_eVw..driver«of the truck alonevarei l"i_ab;_levl" the compensation asVV_awaVrd'eVdfE " V

35. Again thi2_s4'C':g:):£.J'rt.vi:3nA lAcjtt'7Siccy§ }<lHANuMAANTHA RAD v. :'l?\lATICA)AVl§l3')i'\l;f;-tiA,l§l"t§ir£.AU'TICAL LABORATORY & OTHERS) has place in respect of the tool<A,p_l_ace within the precincts of the Laboratory which is not a public place sairdﬂthavtﬁtlliierewlwas nothing in Section 110 nor in the .1_l'_j':jot'ifi,cation" thereunder, which could be construed to iitsjurisdiction only to accidents occurred in a public . " 5 ,.r 'p'l'aC_e._...' K. 44

36. In AIR 1988 80m. 248 (PANDURANG CHEEMAJI AGLE & ANOTHER v. NEW INDIA INsuRANCE CONRANY LTD.) it is held that a private place to which permissive access it is a public place.

37. In I982 AC3 208 (EMPLOYEES ':'3«Ti_3."ifE A CORPORATION v. L RANGA RAO) thie %eim«ipieyyIeéI, offered by a vehicle, while walkin"g{hiis way*«to'~th'e it 8 has been held that "because it_7is_'yhfiyhfiyaterial'whether an employee was traveling in a vehicle or a omni bus ofhwe a puubllviic road or private lane when he hasv"'suffeVred_'anjii8n'f*vlf\/?'i~;' When this Court has given such a wicie1int:erpVreta'tio'n order to cover the persons wVh_O"'sLIsVtia'i.nJiiiiury whivlemion their way to the factory, the object.Of?'_'-I/éryTi«n'VsuV.ra~nce itself is to cover all the unfortunate victims. "in v--the=circumstances, an attempt to exclude the _ not acceptable.

_=3a=aIfn AIR 1988 sc 1332 Para--9 (GURU GOVEKAR v. F.LOBO) it is held as Follows:

if I "9. When the owner of a motor vehicle entrusts his vehicle to a repairer to carry out repairs he is l fact allowing the repairer to vehicie in that connection." It"i's_v aiso V V implicit in the said transactfionl that «. "

uniess there is any"co'ntract" to the contrary the owner of the-.,ye.hicie"a«.i:so causes or aiiovs:s_"jany'_Vf s,e.r"\'/a,ni::"'of the repairer who is engaged' 'in.--~«tlhe.j'_~W'(.9rk of repai_rsyt:o~_-.use the_:',.motor'_j\/ehicle for the pu'r'posi?3e...';of' o_r.,___in._ c'orinec'tion with t,vhel'llVwo.r;k_ o'f'§,4"Vre_p'a.i'rs andlwhen such work of repair%Vi's.._being carried out in a pub'l'ic._lp,|aqce account of the __§ln'eg|igen'ce_,V:of either the repairer or employee, who is engaged in with the work of repair, a .""fthivrdV'V's:pa:rty dies or suffers any injury . eithehrx to his person on property, the if * .ri.._inVs"urer become liable to pay the ~'compensation under the provisions of the Act. In this context we may refer to the provisions of S.35(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 which was in K' :36 force in England, which at the relevant time read as follows.

39. In 2006 ACJ 92 (G MURUGAN & A'i"l_::C:)Tifi:VE'§%'"c MAHESHWARAN & ANOTHER) it is helzdﬂinl'Pavr'agrap.hsjT?;"i8h$L': 10 as follows:

"An agricultural field is a place]*.v':LiapilViVty of Insurance Company hag vvtlovvurt that vehicle which was up when a iron rod fell on at in his death, insurance on the ground that accident land belonging to a private party. company is exempted f_ro'm_Aliabiii'~§.ty The cou rtsaid ' no'. .4O.,_VIr}A219E§9_VACJ 1520 (UNITED INDIA INSURANCE coMéANY«LII§?Ii'IIE:IjI§;s., PARVATHI DEVI & OTHERS, Para- _ 17 lhrleadnaséltollowsz The definition of 'public place' is it very wide. A perusal of the same reveals that the public at large has a right to access though that right is i I 47 regulated or restricted. It is also seen that this Act is beneficial legislation, so also the law of interpretation has to be construed in the benefit public. In the overall legal positionifg:"*'~:' «A and the fact that if the p iahguaJgre, simple and unambiguous, to . 2 V' construed in the ben'efi_t-of the .pub,lic.:, we are of the view_.th:at_ the 'public place', *--wl'.eArevet_r a right or VcontroAlVle'd..,Vin'__' :any~~.v.'rn".an-':'1er whatsogever,j'-- wo__ulc;l .:'attra"cti_"-se_c:t£on 2 (24);of"'»_t.h'ev- y'i"ew_' of this, as s,tatedA,"'v'tvhe_"«pri'va't.e_ place used with permission."ifjvor"«~._wi«thout permission woulid-.an*to,u--nt°to"t)'e a 'public place'.

InA"v'i'ew" of what we have above, we hold that the :""--.._'e$<p'r_e.ssi'o'n 'public place' for the pu°r'p-ose of Chapter VIII of the Motor l/'e.-'ﬁcles Act, 1939 will cover all places 'ijincluding those of private ownership where members of the public have an access whether free or controlled in any manner whatsoever.

(cl 48

41. In 2005 AC3 609 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., vs., CHAITRA & OTHERS, head note reads as follows:

"Pub|iC Place-LEabiii€Y of i:'1suranc='3--::"

company--Accident private qua rry--Whethe.rK__ quarry is a public placesjlcifaiid ins'ura'n.:r:."e company is iia':hlVe~Hefld:_;'V' place includes have'acC'ess:jwh'et:he..r'access is free or conlwtrolledllllin"4anyV:'rnanner".

42. SHAiYlARAO'- v PARULEKAR & OTHERS v. i;sc;s;.m;:c'T iyu:~<sAt3l:sRATE,"THANA,BoMaAv & OTHERS (AIR 1952.. reads as follows:

"fa-v2..vf'.7i:3Aut we wish to found deeper A this. It is the duty of Courts to V "sgive effect to the meaning of an Act if when the meaning can be fairly gathered from the words used, that is 'K 49 to say, if one construction will lead to an absurdity while another will give effect to what commonsense would show was obviously intended, the construction which would,,defeat_."th'e.:Tj.7. ' ends of the Act must be r:e_ject_e4dj. even' 4' ' if the same words used inuthe sam"e.',"' ° section, and even the'*vsa'nne sentence, it have to be ,constr,u-e'£1.",»~.d"i~fferen'tly.,. Indeed, the law Tgoes {_s:o'"*~far,'as to require the Cour.ts.:'sron'ieAti,rn'es even" to modify;"tl'ie.,:,1'grammatical fa rid .._ordinary sense' ,w=ojrcl"'s~ Vlbiy---doing so absurlttlityi and '«i_nco_nsistency can be avoid-ed.' speech of Lord V_Wens':.ey'da,le in>"€§VREY VI PEARSON', V HLC....6~1 at p.106 quoted with by the Privy Council in "-'.__.A'i\lV4/5§'l%»}_€_3\'K)Vf5i»l:slA SWAMI v. EMPEROR', AIR 1939, t~iP c 47 also 'SALMON V 'DlJ1~NCOMBE', (1886) 11 A C 627 at it ;"--..,p.634. The rule is also set out in the text book: See Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 9"' Edition, page 236 and Craies on Statute Law 5"' Edition, pages 89 to 93. The K 50 meaning of section 3 is quite plain and only desperate hairsplitting can . reduce it to an absurdity. Courts___":V:V"':u"'e..V"

should not be astute to defeat provisions of an Act whose meanin'g"'is~:f_ '_ V on the face of it, reasonably course, this does not_4_mea'ny_"'that ° Act, or any part of be re_ca.st.;

It must be p.ossibl'e-e-'to.spell the meaning contended ; the words actually there is" negdifficultv co.nst'i'uction.

43. In"'C'El\lf§?iAls:l3'AE\l:l<.,V§)F inflow v. STATE or KERALA & OTHERS, i({2oo9) 92 & 94 it is held as follows: 5- --. if . i A s j'f;~..y,._..To pL,itA it differently, the DRT if not only brought into .""éexistle"inc:e special procedural {n'e.chanism for speedy recovery of the if dues of banks and financial eiinstitutions, but also made provision for ensuring that defaulting borrowers are not able to invoke the jurisdiction of civil courts for frustrating the K2.

Sl proceedings initiated by the banks and financial institutions.

"94. ....... ..Security including mortgage and charge on immovable propertiefsirl given for due payment of _--a--ny:':jj..:"*~::' « financial assistance given " V V or financial institution, c|assi..fication ~ '~ if if borrowers' account as--vn'ong~perforrn.iin'g asset and above Va.l.!.u:'"em.pow.ering banks and fin'a.n"cial._g i2rist'it.n;iti.on.s to take possessionA.o.f:l'sec.u_Vritiesvgiv.en--V*'for financial'a1s:sista__nce-and :sa.i--e.._Q£' lease theVVs'anie o:rfV4t"ai:{e».,Vo'verlhnilaynagement.

44. 1nicRAMEsHAiMlAEHi*A vi SANWALCHANDSENGHVI & OTHERS :fepori;ea int(2oie,4)*/5 scc 409 Para 25, 27 & 31 it i.S'he.ld as:fo,,lili3vv.$2 _____ . The interpretation clause in th_e'5s_arid Act is prefaced with the if ..e"x.pression "unless the context " otherwise requires".

"27. A definition is not to be read in isolation. It must be read in the context of the phrase which would i FUND COMMISSIONER, reported in (2008) 5 U1 i\) define it. It should not be vague or T T ambiguous. The definition of words must be given a meaningfuiV.:é.."

application; where the context m_a'l<e4sj'~'t.:*~.,:' « the definition givenﬂ it '"«._ti'%je interpretation clauseTVinapol.i_oabA.le, = ' iv same meaning cannot._beV_%assign_ed..t_V "31. A subor'di..nateVﬂor':__delegatedi legislation must a_lso*-lie a meaningful m,:mne.g V'to,.'VV"give effecttf) statute.

In s€e.3_lVec::'t'i'no of a _bewhad to the thereto. If two const«rucvtio':i.s'V'a_vr'e«:j:i'ossible to adopt, a _}:'rne.aning' ~ would make the worlrable and in consonance theivilstatutory scheme should be MANIPAL ACADEMY or HIGHER EDUCATION v. Para 13 reads as follows:

i 53 ":3. Though the statute in question is a beneficial one, the concept of beneficial legislation become.s:«:A.." relevant only when two "views_--*a*i'e'f'..:"'~.TA possible.

46. In NEW INDIA ASSAURA-AICEAicoivIreAfI\iY' LIIrvlIrEDit v. NUSLI NEVILLE WADIAIAANQTEIER (i'2e0o8i)i3A~ scc 279) Para 54 reads as follows: l V "54. The I:$.r_qvisi;:jns; thAé:"'l}"--\_'ct...§3L:r§id the Rules are required to'.-"'b',,e' In Ihrettiiaem of the action.'AA'o~f_...t_:he {as envisaged un'der*AVrt'icl.e'_'o.f:"t'h'e Constitution of India."-. v.r.iti,--. view to give effect Wighielreto, 't"ine.. .... doctrine of purposive 'A cD>ns.tr.ijc~tion may have to be taken re'co'ur_sel"_'tD.

In" ,AssocIATED INDEM MECHANICAL (P) LTD v. INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. AND h reported in (2007) 3 SCC 607 head note reads as </ "A. Rent Control and Eviction --

W.B.Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 (19 of 1975)-gays"fl; _ Ss.2(a),(c),(f) and 3 -- Applicability the 1976 Act regulating Tftenancy A government premises" Whiether-. 7' 7"

applicable to govt. pre.misels._tised non-residentr'al purposes» -- Heidi; S.2(a) of the .1976 c~tAct"Vt.ﬁLjoVy"ered all' kinds of '4pre'mi's_ei-36 ':'*§wh%ether commerciai, industrial 7 'o:j_res.idVential, except tesiaenteer any person ;:_4a'uth'or»is:ed;.to--7' o=;c'upy any pgremisels.-»VinV_'c«on's.id'e,ratlCn of the office which he' the State Govt.

or al"'*go'vt._'v--.un'd'e'rtlaking -- Hence, it not*be____said that the 1976 Act wyas.%--.a'p.plicable only to residential .bui:l'd.,lnngi."sVand not to non--residential bLlild:iV3n.egs like industréal sheds or cornmercial buildings -- Wide and '"~..comprehensive definition of the word "premises" in S.2(c) of the 1976 Act and use of the words "any" and "includes" therein, taken note of in this regard -- Definition of "premises"

l 55 in the1976 Act distinguished from the one under the W.8. Government Premises (Regulation of Occupancy.)?r"

Act, 1984 (21 of 1984).

48. In UNITED INDIA INSURAi§i'CE:'_CE$MAPAlSi\('VLlVl§l'iITE'D. v. MANUBHAI DHARMASINHL3§i'AIGAJERA~ "':..;OT~l*-iERS, reported in (2008) 10 SCCAO4 h(ead"g_note_read's~as.follows:

"A.Insurance--He'alt_h'.

Mediclairn/'-- __healt'h'" pzolilcies issued" by p::u.bl€§;c:VV. ;ges;lo;--y(psu) in su ' it min elwal of~ insurers statu.toryv«c'r'e:ai;ions and part of the u"St_ate VVVunder=l¥rt.12) to act fairly __{:a'Vnd rea'sonably in respect of (1) V the contractual power " V. the policy at any time by itjsen'd'i'vn3g*i:;the insured 30 days' notice"

V ullontsrevfﬁunding the premium pro rata, " (2) despite their monopoly in the held of general insurance having been brought to an end--such policies when to be renewed-matters to be considered by insurers--Binding effect l S9 meaningful interpretation to the provisions of the for the purpose of awarding compensation. Sectio.sf1.._'442__A'»V(':'._'_3e'-'._',of the Act gives meaning to public place as_.a_,lV:%'p.lace:' includes 'any place'. The word 'a;ny'V_i_fgi_;t"i.gs purpose of public place, it could.'easilyibe"interp'reVtedLfor purpose of the Act that theft'veihiicleivf:satisfies provisions of this Act ._be treated as a 'public place'. The aims "o'f_'p;rovisions for the purpose of kept in mind.

In the instavyn.t...cva'seF;-- caused the accident resulted iniviagn Though the place where the rigging wéisymaaé public place which belongs to "bu.t_..since the vehicle was insured with the.a'ppel--!aArit4:_a:j'dilicensed by the State and which was also 7W,.,,__P€rmitted"andtliesiifunctions of the vehicle is to rig borewell it is*~aA':.public place or private place. Therefore, as '1.,',l¢ong7a_:;. vehicle is registered and insured and satisfies . 'lthejlproivisions of the Act and as long as the vehicle is not Vli'«:.i'VAco-nfined only to a private place like, within the factory or 3' K mm «£3 60 within the mining area or like that, in case of an accident causing bodily injury or death, the insurance bound to satisfy the compensation, whethe.r_y'vt'h§«i;3:¢¢ideri't.,u»""

takes place either in private place or;:;pub:l4icj~.p'lace.;

54. Under Section the the State Government has to constitu_teé.V:ty for the purpose of adjudicating upon'.jthe':clairnsvyitorllllcompensation in respect of or bodily injury to persons vehicle. It is not a restricted to Section 165 of the Act which is the purpose of awarding e,ither"'inl...p.rivate place or in the public place. Sectiyon'"147-.;off=the.. Act also does not restrict place of 'lull=,accidenty__as pvriyyvaliteiilplace or public place as to the liability of

--.vjthe'<i..nsurance'1- company. When such is the aim of the 4:~.'.lVegis'latu_re'; this court cannot restrict otherwise it retorts the h the legislature.

6]

55. In the instant case, rigging borewell iorry when it was rigging boreweii in a private piace, the injury because of the rash and negiigent act the lorry. The vehicie was meant for righginigité 'i.;;oi*e\/v'e'll..':eith_ge'r..fn':' pubiic piace or in private place.When"such,is1.the cese, restrictive meaning cannot be holy insurance company iiable only if a public place. Therefore, the insurance company faiis and

56. 'the appeal filed by the claimant for compensation. The claims tl:l'..h|.JA_i'i3l the compensation and there is noscope"for:fen'h--ancement. In the circumstances, the 'ii-isivppeail'{fired claimant seeking for enhancement is

--..Ta!..s.o'i.i,able tobe dismissed. appeals are accordingiy dismissed. _T_l_"ie amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to tribunal.

ii.

62 Before parting with the judgment, this court piaces on record the assistance rendered by Sri V Lakshminarayana, who was appointed as amicus curiae in the case. akd*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court