Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a private road or private place to which the public have permissive access is a "public place" within the meaning of Section 2(24) and Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Analysis: The definition of "public place" was held to be inclusive and to turn on the public's right of access rather than on ownership. The Court distinguished between a mere right of access and access as of right, and held that even access regulated, restricted, or controlled by permission, passes, or other conditions is sufficient. Reading the provisions of Chapter VIII in light of the statute's object of protecting third parties and securing compensation, the Court preferred the broader line of authority and rejected the narrower view that only places open to the public as of right are covered.
Conclusion: A private place or road to which the public have permissive or controlled access is a "public place" for the purposes of Section 2(24) and Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The insurance company was therefore liable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the insurer was held equally liable with the other judgment-debtors for compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purposes of compulsory motor vehicle insurance, "public place" includes any place to which members of the public have access, even if such access is permissive, restricted, or controlled, and not merely access as of right.