JUDGMENT Sanju Panda, J. 1. Since both the appeals arise out of a common award dated 20.9.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge-cum-3rd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rourkela in M.A.C.T. Case No. 157/75 (sic) of 1992-97, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. Facts leading to the present appeals are as follows: Claimant filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the ground that on 19.2.1992 at 2.30 p.m. while he along with his friend was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration No. OAU 3799 inside Rourkela Steel Plant area, suddenly a truck bearing registration No. ORO 2380 came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, as a result of which he sustained multiple injuries on his person and was shifted to Ispat General Hospital, Rourkela for treatment. He was under treatment there as an indoor patient from 19.2.1992 to 28.2.1992. After being discharged from the said hospital, he was also under treatment and his treatment continued till filing of the claim application. As he lost income due to suffering, he filed the claim application claiming compensation towards his treatment and suffering. 2. The owner of the vehicle contested the claim case. In the show-cause, he has taken the stand that the claimant has to prove that the accident took place due to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the accident took place in a public place and in absence of strict proof of the same, the claim application is liable to be dismissed. 3. The appellant insurance company, on the other hand, contested the claim case reiterating the fact that since the accident took place inside the steel plant area which is not a public place and in absence of proof of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 4. On the above pleadings of the parties, the claimant has examined himself as PW 1 and exhibited documents which were marked as Exhs. 1 to 10, i.e., discharge certificates, cash receipts, certified copy of the F.I.R., certified copies of the charge-sheets, pay slip, etc. The owner as well as the insurance company did not prefer to examine any witness nor did they file any document in support of their respective pleas. 5. 1 to 10, i.e., discharge certificates, cash receipts, certified copy of the F.I.R., certified copies of the charge-sheets, pay slip, etc. The owner as well as the insurance company did not prefer to examine any witness nor did they file any document in support of their respective pleas. 5. On analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the finding that the accident took place in the private premises of the Rourkela Steel Plant. The insurance company in view of the said finding cannot be directed to indemnify the compensation amount as the accident took place inside the private area. Due to the accident, the left leg of the injured was amputated and he became totally disabled. Even though the insurance company is not liable, the liability of the owner cannot be ignored and, therefore, the owner is liable to pay compensation to the injured. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation amount at Rs. 1,75,500. The Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the aforesaid amount to the claimant with right of recovery of the same from the owner of the vehicle by following due process of law. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident took place in the private place, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, as such the impugned award is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision in the case of L.I.C. of India v. Karthyani, 1975 ACJ 226 (Orissa). 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant submitted that the claimant has filed a separate appeal bearing M.A.C.A. No. 220 of 2011 in which he has prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount, since then he has suffered a lot due to amputation of his left leg and became totally disabled and lost his earning capacity claiming cost of treatment and for his sustenance. Learned counsel for the claimant further submitted that Rourkela Steel Plant being a public undertaking company, the road inside the said company premises is a public place and the entry is permissible. In support of his contention he relied on the decision in the case of Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Raghunath Muduli, 1992 ACJ 117 (Orissa). 8. In support of his contention he relied on the decision in the case of Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Raghunath Muduli, 1992 ACJ 117 (Orissa). 8. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it is to be decided whether the road inside the Rourkela Steel Plant at Rourkela can be said to be 'public place' so as to fasten the liability on the insurer of the offending vehicle as per the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As per the provision of the Act, the requirement of policy and limit of liability arose only after a 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 insured vehicle in a public place. Public place has been defined under the Act and 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. The said question was earlier before this court in the case of L.I.C. of India, 1975 ACJ 226 (Orissa). where this court held that the place where members of the public have admission as of right, that is, where they can go without any hindrance or without being required to take any permission from anybody. If members of the public do not, as of right, have access to a particular place that place cannot be said to be a public place and on that basis it was further held that the factory premises of Hindustan Steel Limited at Rourkela which is not allowed to the members of the public to go in unless there is permission from the authority concerned, the premises cannot be held to be a public place and as such the insurer will not be liable. However, the said decision was considered again by this court in the case of Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd., 1992 ACJ 117 (Orissa) and on analysing the evidence on record and pleas of the parties it was held that the place, where the accident occurred, whether is a public place or private place is to be determined as defined under the Act, whether the public have a right of access. Ins. Co. Ltd., 1992 ACJ 117 (Orissa) and on analysing the evidence on record and pleas of the parties it was held that the place, where the accident occurred, whether is a public place or private place is to be determined as defined under the Act, whether the public have a right of access. Taking into consideration Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, the meaning of the words 'public access to a place' has been given to be a place open to all the public whether by right or permission and also according to K.J. Aiyer's Judicial Dictionary, the test of public place is whether it is open to the members of the public or not even though there may be certain conditions attached to the entry or the use thereof. What is required is that such a place must be open for entry by indeterminate number of members of the public or a determinate number, etc. The reasons assigned in the decision of Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. are correct position of law. 9. The same view was also expressed in the cases of Lanka Sarmma v. Rajendra Singh, 1984 ACJ 198 (AP), Narsingh v. Balkishan, 1988 ACJ 288 (MP) and Pandurang Chimaji Agale v. New India Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 1988 ACJ 674 (Bombay), where it was held as follows: 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. In another decision reported in Hira Bai v. Pratap Singh, 2008 ACJ 2660 (MP), it was also held that the definition of 'public place' is very wide. A perusal of the same reveals that public at large has a right to access though that right is regulated or restricted. In another decision reported in Hira Bai v. Pratap Singh, 2008 ACJ 2660 (MP), it was also held that the definition of 'public place' is very wide. A perusal of the same reveals that public at large has a right to access though that right is 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 of public. In the overall legal position and the fact that if the language is simple and unambiguous, it has to be construed in the benefit of the public. We are of the view that the words 'public place' wherever used as a right or controlled in any manner whatsoever, would attract section 2(24) of the Act. Private place used with permission or without permission would amount to be a 'public place'. The 'public place' does not necessarily mean that it must be the public property. 10. In view of the aforesaid position of law as pronounced and applying the same ratio to the present case and since the steel plant is a public limited company, the public have a right of access to it as such steel plant premises is a public place. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal on the said score is set aside and this court held that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this court feels that the compensation determined by the Tribunal is just and fair and as such this court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The said compensation will carry interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the insurance company as well as by the claimants are allowed in part. No costs.