JUDGMENT/ORDER : R.P. Dholaria, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 2.4.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Junagadh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 711 of 1996. 2. The original claimants have preferred the present appeal, inter alia, contending that learned Tribunal while considering factual scenario which was emerging out from the pleadings that the incident in question has occurred which is not the public place and therefore, wrongfully exonerated the insurance company from the payment of any amount of compensation. 3. This Court has heard Mr. L.R. Pathan, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Sandip C. Shah, learned advocate for respondent No.4 - insurance company. Though served, none has appeared for rest of the respondents. 4. Since the appellants have questioned exoneration of the insurance company holding that the incident occurred in the compound of Jagdish Oil Mill, Junagadh which is not public place and therefore, this Court has concentrated upon the said issue and that learned advocates for the rival parties have also argued on that point only. 5. On going through the pleadings, it can be seen that the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Asgarali have clearly and categorically pleaded that the deceased was working as labourer on daily wage basis in Jagdish Oil Mill, Junagadh and while he was on duty, he was loading edible oil in tanker No.GTX 2405, at that time, driver of the said tanker driven the said vehicle in such a manner that he lost control over the vehicle, due to which, tanker dashed with the deceased which resulted into severe injuries and ultimately, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. 6. On going through the evidence available on record, indisputably, the incident in question occurred within the compound of Jagdish Oil Mill. Indisputably, the aforesaid Oil Mill is a private property and at the time of incident, the deceased was serving as an employee of the said Oil Mill and he was engaged in loading edible oil in the tanker involved in the accident. In view of the aforesaid undisputed factual scenario, the issue came to be decided by learned Tribunal that the incident occurred within the private property and therefore, in view of the provisions of section 147 read with section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 ("the Act" for short), no liability can be fastened upon the insurance company. 7. In view of the aforesaid undisputed factual scenario, the issue came to be decided by learned Tribunal that the incident occurred within the private property and therefore, in view of the provisions of section 147 read with section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 ("the Act" for short), no liability can be fastened upon the insurance company. 7. Learned advocates for both the sides have cited several decisions in support of their submissions which are as under. (i) Prakash Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Krishnasingh Satasingh Kaaniyara and another, (1993) 1 GLH 149 . (ii) Banaskantha Dist. Co.Op. Milk Produces Union Vs Prajapati Jayantibhai Bababhai and others, (2006) 4 GLR 3700 . (iii) Abdulhamid Valimohmad Vs Ramaben Virpuri Goswami and another, (2016) ACJ 120 (iv) G. Bhuvaneswari and others Vs M. Sornakumar and others, (2000) ACJ 1343. 8. In (M/s) Prakash Chemicals Private Limited, the Honourable Court has observed in paragraphs 24, 25, 26 and 27 as under. "24. After making the aforesaid pertinent observations and holdings on the content of the expression 'public place', the Full Bench proceeded to refer to the dictionary meaning of the expression 'public place'. After having done so, the Full Bench referred to the various judgments of the various High Courts on the point. It is not necessary for us to dwell at length on all the discussion that has been made by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court. Suffice it to say that the discussion clearly spells out the cleavage of opinion on the interpretation of the expression 'public place' as used in the relevant provisions of the Act. Some of the judgments noticed by the Full Bench took a view that if the place where the accident occurred is a private property, it can never be a 'public place'. In that catena of decisions, the Full Bench has also referred to the judgment in the case of Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. v. Rabari Gandu Punja and Others, rendered by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, to which we have made a reference hereinabove. On the other hand, the Full Bench has also referred to the other line of decision which took the contrary and more liberal view. v. Rabari Gandu Punja and Others, rendered by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, to which we have made a reference hereinabove. On the other hand, the Full Bench has also referred to the other line of decision which took the contrary and more liberal view. It is interesting to note that while adverting to the decisions on that line, the Full Bench has referred to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of State v Sobhana Jamnadas, (1961) AIR(Gujarat) 182. That of course, was a case under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. In that case, the concerned accused were found to be gambling in a Second Class Ladies' Waiting Room at Jetalsar Railway Station. The Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, made the Act of gaming in a place to which public have, access, an offence punishable under Section 12 of that Act. The question before the Division Bench of this Curt was whether the Second Class Ladies' Waiting Room at Jetalsar Railway Station could be said to be a 'public place' so as to make the Act of the concerned accused an offence under Section 12 of the Act, and that the definition of 'public place' included a place to which the public have, or are permitted to have access. The definition of the expression 'public place' under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act is slightly different than the definition of the said expression under Clause (24) of Section 2 of the Act. Nonetheless, the judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court renders some assistance to us as it did to the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in arriving at the meaning to be assigned to the expression 'public place' as used in the relevant provisions of the Act. After adverting to this Division Bench decision of this High Court bearing on the Anti-Gambling law, and after referring to various other judgments, the Full Bench in para 14 of the report observed as under : "The survey of the aforesaid decisions shows that the Courts are not unanimous and there is a divergence of opinion with regard to the definition of 'public place' in Section 2(24) of the Act. For the reasons which we have discussed earlier, we prefer the view taken by the latter authorities and hold that at least for the purposes of Chapter VIII of the Act, the expression 'public place' will cover all places including those of private ownership where members of public have and access whether free or controlled in any manner whatsoever." 25. This judgment rendered by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has been referred to with approval in :- (1) Nagaraj Chhajar v. Soma Priya Ghosh and Os, (1991) ACJ 1041. (2) United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Roop Kanwar and Others, (1991) ACJ 74, and (3) Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Raghunath Muduli and Others, (1992) ACJ 117. As seen above, the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has referred to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rabari Gandu Punja, and has not preferred the holding therein to the contrary view taken by some other decisions. Even in the case of Nagaraj Chhajar, that judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court has been referred to, but the view of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has been followed in that case. Similar is the position in the case of Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Raghunath Muduli and Others, where also the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this High Court has been referred to, but the view of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has been followed. 26. Mr. N.N. Gandhi, the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company relied upon the decision in the case of Nagarathinam v. Murugesan and Others, (1991) ACJ 673. We have gone through that judgment and we find that in that judgment neither the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court has been referred to, nor has it referred to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, referred to by us hereinabove. The decision relied upon by Mr. N.N. Gadhi, therefore, has no assistance to render to us in this case. 27. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has, as seen above, emphasised that the use of the expression 'public place' is not so much concerned with the ownership of the place as with the user thereof. The decision relied upon by Mr. N.N. Gadhi, therefore, has no assistance to render to us in this case. 27. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has, as seen above, emphasised that the use of the expression 'public place' is not so much concerned with the ownership of the place as with the user thereof. For emphasising this, the Full Bench has resorted to the later part of the definition of the expression 'public place' as given in Clause (24) of Section 2 of the Act, In that later part of the definition of the expression 'public place' given in Clause (24) of Section 2 of the Act, in the expression 'public place' is included any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage. This would mean that any place where a stage carriage plies for the purpose of picking up and setting down passengers would be a 'public place' within the meaning of the expression of Clause (24) of Section 2 of the Act, irrespective of the ownership of the place. The earlier part of the definition deals with the roads, streets, way or other place whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and the later part includes the place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by stage carriage. Therefore, it is clear that it was not so much with the ownership of the place where the accident occurs that the Legislature was concerned, in defining the expression 'public place' as with the use of the place. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in paragraph 8 of its judgment." 9. The aforesaid view is also taken in the decisions in the case of Banaskantha District Co.Op. Milk Producers Union, Abdulhamid Valimohmad and G. Bhuvaneshwari. 10. In view of the principles laid down in the above referred decisions read with section 147 and section 2(34) of the Act, it is not in dispute that deceased Asgarali was serving as daily wager in the aforesaid Jagdish Oil Mill and he had clear access of the aforesaid Mill. Milk Producers Union, Abdulhamid Valimohmad and G. Bhuvaneshwari. 10. In view of the principles laid down in the above referred decisions read with section 147 and section 2(34) of the Act, it is not in dispute that deceased Asgarali was serving as daily wager in the aforesaid Jagdish Oil Mill and he had clear access of the aforesaid Mill. Not only that, but tanker No.GTX 2405 was also not belonging to Jagdish Oil Mill which was brought in the said Mill in order to load edible oil for transporting the same elsewhere and therefore, though the property is private in nature, but the deceased was working as labourer and the official s who were serving in the said Mill as well as other persons who are either supplying raw material and lifting edible oil, all have access for carrying out their activities and therefore, while carrying out such activities, the said persons have been permitted to have access of place of Jagdish Oil Mill. Under the circumstances, learned Tribunal has fallen in error while appreciating the provisions of law and wrongfully exonerated the insurance company. In view of the aforesaid factual position, so far as the deceased was concerned, the place of Jagdish Oil Mill, Junagadh was public place in view of clear provisions of section 147 read with section 2(34) of the Act. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and award stands modified that all the respondents shall jointly and severally pay the amount of compensation including respondent No.4 - insurance company. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned lower Court forthwith. No costs.