Judgment ( 1. ) BEING aggrieved by the award dated 3. 9. 2004 passed by M. A. C. T. , neemuch in Claim Case No. 22 of 2004 whereby a sum of Rs. 17,66,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum, the present appeal has been filed. ( 2. ) SHORT facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 is the owner of a minibus bearing registration No. MP 14-K 1917 which was insured with the appellant. A claim petition was filed by respondent No. 1 alleging that on 30. 4. 1998, in the said bus respondent No. 1 along with other persons was going to attend marriage party of one Susheela, daughter of Dharampal, who happens to be friend of respondent No. 1. It was alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 2 at the relevant time. It was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 2, the offending minibus met with an accident, resulting which the respondent No. 1 sustained multiple fractures. It was further alleged that because of the accident, respondent No. 1 sustained grievous injuries and has become 100 per cent disabled to earn his livelihood. Claim petition was contested by the appellant on various grounds including the ground that since respondent No. 1 was himself the owner of the vehicle, therefore, he is not entitled for any compensation from the appellant. It was prayed that claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 be dismissed. ( 3. ) ON the basis of pleadings of parties, the learned Tribunal framed the issues, recorded the evidence and awarded a sum of Rs. 17,66,000, break-up of which is as under: ( 4. ) MR. S. V. Dandwate, learned counsel for appellant submits that learned Tribunal committed an error in allowing the claim petition against the appellant. It is submitted that since respondent No. 1 himself was the owner of the offending bus, therefore, the insurance company was not liable for payment of compensation under clause (b)of sub-section (1) of section 147 of the motor Vehicles Act. In the alternative, Mr. Dandwate submits that amount awarded is on higher side. It was submitted that from the medical report it is evident that respondent no. 1 was mentally shocked. In the alternative, Mr. Dandwate submits that amount awarded is on higher side. It was submitted that from the medical report it is evident that respondent no. 1 was mentally shocked. It is submitted that there was no justification for awarding the compensation treating the respondent No. 1 as 100 per cent disabled person. It is also submitted that the learned tribunal committed error in awarding rs. 8,16,000 for loss of income and again awarding Rs. 5,00,000 under the head of permanent disability. ( 5. ) RELIANCE was placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , 2005 ACJ 1 (SC), wherein the Honble Apex Court has observed that the insurance company covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorised representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death of or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. In the case before the Apex Court, the claimant was travelling in his own jeep when it met with an accident. ( 6. ) MR. D. D. Vyas, the learned senior counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that undisputedly respondent No. 1 was travelling in his own bus, but at the relevant time the capacity of respondent No. 1 was as a passenger, as the bus was hired for carrying marriage party and respondent no. 1 was also a member of the marriage party. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 1 has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jamna Bai, 2003 ACJ 127 (MP), wherein a Division Bench of this court awarded the compensation in a claim case where the deceased who was the owner of tractor was dashed by his own tractor which was rashly and negligently driven by the driver of the said tractor. In this case, it was observed that the words public place should be construed liberally, broadly and pragmatically and not in a pedantic and narrow sense with a view to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the same. In this case, it was observed that the words public place should be construed liberally, broadly and pragmatically and not in a pedantic and narrow sense with a view to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the same. In this case since the deceased was on the street when he was dashed by his own tractor, the Division Bench of this court observed that for the purpose of this accident, the deceased was third party. ( 8. ) NOW this court has to answer the following questions: (i) Whether respondent No. 1 who was owner of the offending vehicle is entitled for compensation? (ii) Whether the amount of compensation of Rs. 17,66,000 awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper? ( 9. ) COMING to the first question, so far as liability of the insurance company is concerned, from the perusal of the law laid down in the case of Dhanraj v. New India assurance Co. Ltd. , 2005 ACJ 1 (SC), it is evident that in that case the claimant was the driver of his own jeep and in this case the impact of sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147 of the act was not considered, which reads as under: "147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which- (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)- (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. " ( 10. ) IN the present case, undisputedly the respondent No. 1 was the owner of his own bus but the same was booked for a marriage party in which the respondent was one of the members. " ( 10. ) IN the present case, undisputedly the respondent No. 1 was the owner of his own bus but the same was booked for a marriage party in which the respondent was one of the members. The words public place and public service vehicle are defined under sections 2 (34) and 2 (35) of the Act respectively, which reads as under: "2 (34): public place 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; 2 (35): public service vehicle means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage;" ( 11. ) UNDISPUTEDLY the accident occurred at a public place by a public service vehicle. It is also proved by the evidence on record that respondent No. 1 was travelling in the offending vehicle as a passenger being a member of the marriage party and not as an owner to supervise and control the bus. Since the respondent No. 1 was a passenger in a public service vehicle, may be owned by him, which met with an accident at public place, therefore, the respondent No. 1 ought to have been treated as third party as laid down by Division bench of this court in the case of Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. , 2003 ACJ 127 (MP)and his claim petition cannot be dismissed only on the ground that respondent No. 1 was the owner of the vehicle. ( 12. ) COMING to the quantum, from perusal of evidence on record, it appears that respondent No. 1 has sustained grievous injuries. There were multiple fractures. Respondent No. 1 was admitted to Civil hospital at Ratlam on 1. 5. 1998 from where he was shifted to Gokuldas Hospital. He was under coma and remained in Gokuldas hospital as indoor patient up to 16. 6. 1998. From perusal of the affidavit submitted by kishore Kumar Lalwani, respondent No. 1, it is evident that he has nowhere stated that prior to the accident what was his business and what was his income. Respondent No. 1 has also examined Virendra soni, AW 2 and Nanakram, AW 3. 6. 1998. From perusal of the affidavit submitted by kishore Kumar Lalwani, respondent No. 1, it is evident that he has nowhere stated that prior to the accident what was his business and what was his income. Respondent No. 1 has also examined Virendra soni, AW 2 and Nanakram, AW 3. From their evidence also income of respondent no. 1 cannot be ascertained. ( 13. ) FROM the statement of Dr. G. L. Daad, AW 4, it appears that apart from the head injury, respondent No. 1 has sustained other bodily injuries also. It is also stated by Dr. Daad, the disability of the respondent No. 1 was 66 per cent. From perusal of the certificate, Exh. P1, which has been issued by civil surgeon Dr. Daad, it is evident that respondent has recollected his past and recent memories, he is aware of surroundings, his behaviour is not violent, he can protect himself, he identifies the things. ( 14. ) FROM perusal of this certificate it is obvious that in spite of head injuries, respondent No. 1 has no permanent disability, insofar as his memory and other mental activities are concerned. So far as the amount awarded is concerned, on account of medical expenses, the respondent No. 1 has submitted bills which are from Exhs. A5 to A135 and Exhs. A242 to A272. On account of treatment, the amount awarded is Rs. 2,50,000. So far as amount awarded under other heads is concerned, it appears that amount awarded is on higher side. So far as propriety of award is concerned, the case is remanded to the learned Tribunal who shall observe the present condition of respondent No. 1 and shall re-calculate the amount of award after taking into consideration the evidence on record. Respondent no. 1 shall be at liberty to adduce further evidence, if any, to demonstrate his ailment. The learned Tribunal shall dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of first appearance. In the meantime, appellant shall pay a sum of rs. 2,50,000 towards medical expenses as awarded by the learned Tribunal which shall be adjusted towards the amount of compensation which shall be awarded by the learned Tribunal. ( 15. ) THUS, the findings of the learned tribunal relating to the liability of appellant is maintained. In the meantime, appellant shall pay a sum of rs. 2,50,000 towards medical expenses as awarded by the learned Tribunal which shall be adjusted towards the amount of compensation which shall be awarded by the learned Tribunal. ( 15. ) THUS, the findings of the learned tribunal relating to the liability of appellant is maintained. However, the findings relating to the amount of compensation is set aside with the directions mentioned hereinabove. Parties are directed to remain present before the Tribunal on 6. 10. 2006. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of. Orders accordingly.