Workshops Are 'Public Places' Under Motor Vehicles Act; Insurer Liable For Blast During Repair Of Stationary Vehicle: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that a private motor garage is a "public place" within the meaning of Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as members of the public have a right of access to such premises for purposes like vehicle repairs and related services. The Court observed that a vehicle stationed in a garage for repairs continues to be in "use" under the Act and, therefore, an insurer remains liable for third-party claims arising from an accident during such repairs.
Justice Jitendra Jain was hearing an appeal filed by The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. challenging an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directing the insurer and the vehicle owner to pay compensation of ₹8.26 lakh to the family of a welder who died in 2015 after a stationary tanker exploded while welding work was being carried out at Om Sai Servicing Garage in Chembur. The insurer contended that since the tanker was stationary in a private garage, it was not in "use" for the purposes of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the garage was not a "public place", and therefore no statutory liability could be fastened upon it.
The Court held that the expression "use of the motor vehicle" in Section 147 cannot be given a restrictive interpretation confined to vehicles in motion. It observed that repairs are an integral part of the movement and operation of a motor vehicle and that taking a defective vehicle to a garage is itself in discharge of the owner's statutory obligations under the Motor Vehicles Act.
On the question of whether a garage constitutes a "public place", the Court held that the statutory expression refers to places to which the public has a right of access and is concerned more with the user of the premises than its ownership. It observed that a garage, though privately owned, is accessible to members of the public who approach it for repairs or purchase of accessories, and therefore falls within the definition of a "public place" under Section 2(34).
“Merely because the garage is a private property, it cannot be said that the public does not have a right of access. The phrase “public” would mean a defined group of people. In the instant case, public would mean people who approach the garage either for repairing their vehicles or for buying any accessories, etc. The defined group of people owning a vehicle would constitute “public” in the context of Section 2(34) of the Act,” the Court observed.
The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's conclusion that the owner of the vehicle was liable and that the insurer was bound to indemnify the liability arising from the accident, notwithstanding the fact that the tanker was stationary and undergoing repairs.
The Court held that the deceased cannot be held to be negligent and no fault can be attributed to the findings of the Tribunal making the owner/garage owner negligent. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the insurer's appeal and affirmed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award directing payment of compensation to the claimants.
Case Title: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Atikurrahaman Lais Mohammad [First Appeal No. 246 of 2021]