JUDGMENT : Mohinder Pal, J. 1. The present Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 699/2002 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Jamnagar claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of death of three years old child, who came under Truck No. GJ.10.C.9736. 2. Aggrieved by this award, the Insurance Company has come in an Appeal. 3. The brief facts of this case are that on 22.07.2002, the son of the claimant - Jaypal Hanubha Jadeja aged about three years was playing in the compound of his residential house situated at Moti Khavdi. The compound of the premises was having a slope on which a Tractor No. GJ.10.C.9736 was parked. At that time, as no stone etc. was kept in front of the tyres of the tractor, and as the tractor was parked in such a manner, it suddenly started moving and collided against the son - Jaypal who was playing in front of the Truck. As a result of this, Jay received serious injuries. Thereafter, he was taken to Reliance Hospital and was rushed to GG Hospital at Jamnagar for further treatment. However, Jaypal died on account of the injuries received. 4. The claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- against the appellant Insurance Company. Aggrieved by this decision, the present Appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has argued that the accident has taken place within the compound wall of the house of the claimants. This compound wall was a private place and it did not have any public access. Further, the accident has taken place because the daughter of the claimant had fidgeted with the tractor, as a result of which the tractor came into motion and crushed Jaypal. Under these circumstances, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. In support of this argument, he has relied upon the decision passed by this Court in the case of Jasuben Manji Hirani v. Hirani Shamji Kesara and Others in First Appeal No. 3503/2012 and has also relied upon another decision passed by this Court in the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rabari Gandu Punja and Others reported in 1982 A.C.J. 202. 6. Ltd. v. Rabari Gandu Punja and Others reported in 1982 A.C.J. 202. 6. Nobody has put in an appearance on behalf of the respondents. This Court has considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellant. There is no dispute regarding insurance policy issued in favour of the tractor involved in the accident. Further, it can be seen that the insurance company can be held liable only in a case where an accident has taken place in a public place or a public road. In the present case, the tractor was within the compound of the claimants which was for private use and the public had no access to these space. Otherwise also, the accident had taken place because the minor daughter of the claimant was seated on the driver seat and appeared to have pushed a certain lever which brought the tractor into motion and hit the deceased - Jaypal. Otherwise also the claimant was negligent in parking the tractor in such a way that it did not have any bricks in front of the tyres to prevent it from coming into motion. This Court while deciding the aforementioned case in the case of Jasuben Manji Hirani v. Hirani Shamji Kesara and Others, held as under :- "5. I have heard the submissions made by both the counsels. There is no dispute regarding insurance policy issued in favour of the Tractor involved in the accident. However, the dispute remains whether the Insurance Company can be fastened with the liability in a case where accident has taken place in the courtyard of the appellant and that too because of negligence of the Tractor driver who seems to be related of the appellant. In para No. 13 to 17 of the judgment of the Tribunal has discussed this aspect, which is reproduced as under: 13. The Learned Advocate for the opponent No. 3 has submitted that as per Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act the insurer is liable only when the accident has taken place in the public place. He has also submitted that it is clear from the F.I.R. at Exh. 34 and the cross-examination of the claimant at Exh. 30 that the claimant and the opponent Nos. 1 and 2 are residing in the same house. He has also submitted that it is clear from the F.I.R. at Exh. 34 and the cross-examination of the claimant at Exh. 30 that the claimant and the opponent Nos. 1 and 2 are residing in the same house. The opponent No. 1 is brother-in-law whereas the opponent No. 2 is her husband and after his death his son has been brought on record as opponent No. 2. The claimant has specifically admitted in the cross-examination that when she was opening the gate of court-yard of her house the accident has occurred. She has also stated in the cross-examination that the accident has occurred when the opponent No. 1 was taking out his tractor form the court-yard. The Learned Advocate has therefore submitted that from the evidence on record it is clear that the accident has occurred in the court-yard of the house of the claimant and opponent Nos. 1 and 2 which is a private land and not a public place. He has therefore submitted that as per Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act the insurer may not be held liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant as the accident has occurred on private land and not a public road or public place. 15. From the perusal of F.I.R. at Exh. 34 and the evidence of the claimant at Exh. 30; it is clear that the accident has occurred when the opponent No. 1 was taking out the vehicle from his court-yard and the claimant was at that time in the court-yard. The claimant has admitted in her cross-examination that when she was opening the gate of the court-yard of his house the accident has occurred. As per the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the insurance company is liable in respect of death or body injury to any person or damage to any property of third party caused by or arising out of the vehicle in a public place. The definition of public place is provided under Section 2(34) which read as under: Section 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 an access and includes any place or stand at which the passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage. 16. 16. Now question before this Tribunal is whether the court-yard of the house of the claimant and opponent Nos. 1 and 2 where the accident has occurred is a public place as defined in Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicle Act. The decision relied on by the Learned Advocate for the claimant are considered by this Tribunal and it has also been considered by this Tribunal that expression 'public place' should be given a wider interpretation. In the decision reported in 2011 ACT 1175 the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa has held in paragraph 8 and 9 as under: Para 8. The definition of 'public place' under the M.V. Act is, therefore, wide enough to include any place which 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 or badges or on payment of fee. The use may be restricted generally or to a particular purpose or purpose. What is necessary is that the place must be accessible to the members of public and be available for their use, enjoyment, avocation or other purpose. Para 9. It is also necessary to bear in mind the distinction between the expression 'right of access' and 'access as of right'. The latter expression denotes a place where the members of public have a right of its use as members of public and as a matter of right, whether regulated, restricted or not. They cannot, however, be denied the said right except on legal grounds. On the other hand, where there is only a right of access, the owner of the place, if he happens to be a private owner, may deny the access to any member of the public on any ground which he chooses. In other words, in the former case the right of the members of the public to use the place is restricted compared to their right to use in the latter case. The definition under the M.V. Act uses the expression 'right of access' as pointed out earlier. What is, therefore, significant to note is that under the present definition even a place the right to use of which is restricted is a public place. The definition under the M.V. Act uses the expression 'right of access' as pointed out earlier. What is, therefore, significant to note is that under the present definition even a place the right to use of which is restricted is a public place. Once this is borne in mind much of the controversy raised in this appeal around the correct meaning of the expression 'public place' loses its edge. 17. If the principle laid down by the different Hon'ble High Courts about the definition 'public place' is considered then it is clear that the public at large has a right to access though that right is regulated or restricted. All places where the members of public and/or their property are likely to come in contact with the vehicles can legitimately be said to be in its view when the legislature made the relevant provisions of compulsory insurance. All the place where the members of public have an access, for whatsoever reasons, whether as of right or controlled in any manner whatsoever, would be covered by the definition of 'public place'. The expression 'public place' will cover all places including those of private ownership where members of the public have an access whether free or controlled in any manner whatsoever. It is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in a decision reported in 1997(3) 2560 that the definition of a 'public place' under the new Act would include any place with members of public use an to which they have a right to access. The right of access may be permissive, limited, restricted or regulated by oral or written permission, by tickets, passes or badges or on payment of fees. Keeping in mind the above referred observations made by the different High Courts with regard to the expression of 'public place' in the facts of the present case; the place where the accident had occurred is a private place where the public does not have any access whether free or controlled in any manner. It is not the case of the claimant that vehicle was used in the court-yard of the house of the claimant for the purpose of loading or unloading of the goods, and it is not the case of the claimant that the workers were engaged for any agriculture purpose or other business purpose whereby the vehicle (tractor) was used. It is not the case of the claimant that vehicle was used in the court-yard of the house of the claimant for the purpose of loading or unloading of the goods, and it is not the case of the claimant that the workers were engaged for any agriculture purpose or other business purpose whereby the vehicle (tractor) was used. It is not the case of the claimant that the vehicle was allowed the entry in the court-yard for the purpose of any agriculture or other purpose of business to be carried out in the court yard of the house. In the facts of the present case it has not come on record that the cause of an accident has occurred in public place. The claimant would be entitled for the amount of compensation from the insurance company had there been the root or cause of accident taken place in public place. Therefore when the accident has not occurred in the public place, the insurance company cannot be made liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant. The authorities relied on by the claimants is considered by this Tribunal and in these cited authorities the accident has occurred in the private place where the vehicle and workers were allowed the entry for the purpose of loading, unloading of the goods, and therefore, those places were treated as public places. Whereas in the present case, as discussed above the accident has occurred in the private place, and therefore the insurance company is not liable, and therefore, is hereby exonerated from paying the compensation to the claimant. Perusal of this discussion shows that if accident takes place where the members of public have on access, the Insurance Company shall be liable. However, the place of accident in the present case is court-yard of the appellant which totally a private place not open to public and hence, the Insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation." 7. A perusal of this judgment will raise a point as to whether if an accident takes place where members of the public do not have access, can the insurance company be held liable? The accident in the present case is totally at a private place and not open to the public. This view is further confirmed by another decision placed before this Court. 8. The accident in the present case is totally at a private place and not open to the public. This view is further confirmed by another decision placed before this Court. 8. In view of the judgment discussed in the foregoing paragraph, the award passed by the Tribunal against the Insurance Company is liable to be set aside. Hence, the Appeal is allowed accordingly. The appellant - Insurance Company at the time of filing of this Appeal has deposited the amount of award, as directed by the court. The same is ordered to be returned back to the Insurance company alongwith interest accrued thereon.