Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)Oriental Fire And General Insurance Co. ... vs Rabari Gandu Punja on 19 March, 1981
10. Bearing in mind the fact that the provisions of Section 5 of the Act are beneficial provisions for making the insurer liable to pay compensation in a case where death or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party is caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the expression 'public place' should be given a wide interpretation. In this view of the matter, the road inside the Orissa Secretariat compound must be held to be a public place and if any death or injury occurs inside that compound on account of any use of vehicle, then the insurer must be held to be liable to pay the compensation. Disagreeing with the narrow interpretation given by the learned single Judge of this Court in Hindustan Steel case referred to earlier 1975 Acc CJ 227: (AIR 1976 Orissa 21) (supra) and following the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in AIR 1988 Bom 248 (supra), I would hold that the road inside the Secretariat compound is also a public place within the meaning of Section 2(24) of the Act and attracts the provision of Section 95(1)(b)(i) of the said Act, inasmuch as the members of the public have a right of access to the Secretariat though a permission or pass is required for such entry. Mr. Basu's contention must, therefore, be rejected.
Taxi Drivers' Union And Anr. vs Kerala State Road Transport ... on 10 March, 1982
In Taxi Drivers' Union's case AIR 1983 Kerala 69, a learned single Judge of Kerala High Court considered the same question. In that case the accident took place on the link road which joins the National Highway and the building of the Naval Air Station belonging to the Defence Department of Government of India and the Civil Aviation Department has been permitted to use the land and the facilities and the Indian Airlines also was using the Aerodrome for commercial flights; but the link road is a pan of the land belonging to the Defence Department and not a part of the Aerodrome. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the members of the public have no right of access as such and therefore, the place was not a public place.
Chairman, Neyveli Lignite Corporation vs Nayathan And Ors. on 14 September, 1987
In Neyveli Lignite Corporation's case 1989 Acc CJ 95 (Madras) the place at which the accident took place was owned by a commercial corporation and a prohibited area where general public do not have a right of access and entry is restricted by permits. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the place cannot be and to be a public place.
Lanka Saramma vs Rajendra Singh And Ors. on 22 February, 1983
In the case of Lanka Sarmma v. Rajendra Singh, AIR 1984 Andh Pra 32, a question arose whether a dam site which was the place of accident and belonged to the Public Works Department and where the coolies were hired for loading and unloading stones was a 'public place'. The learned Judge held in the affirmative and observed that it would not be a correct interpretation of Section 95 to hold that third party compulsory insurance need not cover an ancident that occurred on a factory premises.
Narsingh And Anr. vs Balkishan And Ors. on 8 October, 1986
In the case of Narsingh v. Balkishan (1987) 1 TAG 364, the learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court considered the definition of 'public place' in Section 2(34) of the Act and observed that the expression should be given a wide import and interpretation and further held that even user of a private place and access of public to it can be interpreted as a 'public place' within the meaning of Section 2(24) and that it was not necessary that the place in question was a public property.
Pandurang Chimaji Agale And Another vs New India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. And ... on 21 January, 1988
This question has been considered in a recent Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Pandurang Chimaji Agale v. New India Life Insurance Company Ltd., AIR 1988 Bombay 248 (FB). It has been held in the aforesaid case that the definition of 'public place' under the Act is, therefore, wide enough to include any place which the 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 and 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 the public and be available for their use, enjoyment, avocation and other purpose. The learned Judges have further observed that the expression 'a right of access' is not the same thing as 'access as of right' and in the decisions referred to earlier the different High Courts have taken the view laying emphasis on the question whether public have access as of right.