JUDGMENT : This is an appeal filed by the insurance company aggrieved by the Award dated 21.02.2012 passed in W.C.A.No.23/2007 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mandya. 2. The claim petition was filed under Section 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-for the death of the workmen who was employed as Loader & Unloader in the Tractor Trailer belonging to the first respondent, that occurred on 30.06.2003. The Court below considering the evidence on record had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.3,20,355/-. 3. It is the case of the claimant that the deceased was working in the capacity of loader & un loader under the first respondent in the Tractor Trailer. On 30.06.2003, as per the instruction of the first respondent, the deceased workman loaded the sugarcane belonging to Javare Gowda i.e., the father of the deceased and taking to Jaggery unit and unloaded the sugarcane in the alemane and while returning, the driver of the tractor instead of driving the tractor in the road drive, drove the vehicle on the bunds of the sugarcane field in a rash and negligent manner. Due to this, the loader sitting on the tractor fell down and the tractor wheel ran over him. As a result of this, the worker sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the accident had taken in a private place but not in a public place. In such event, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is also submitted that the policy is issued for the purpose of using the vehicle for agricultural purpose by the owner of the vehicle, whereas in this case, the sugarcane which belongs to claimant No.2 was taken to the Jaggery unit and he submits that as it is used for hire and reward which is contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy, even on that count also, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. He had invited the attention of the Court to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and relying on 147 (1) and (2) submits that the insurance company is only liable to pay the compensation, if the accident caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. He had invited the attention of the Court to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and relying on 147 (1) and (2) submits that the insurance company is only liable to pay the compensation, if the accident caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. It is submitted that as the accident had taken place not in a public place but in a private place, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. He submits that even proviso (2) of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act also states that against the death or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Then, he has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and submits that if the vehicle is used for hire or reward, where the vehicle is directly under the contract of the insurance is not covered by permit to claim for hire or reward, even in that case also, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act and submits that when it comes to Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, where it mentions about the bodily injuries to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicle or damages to any property or third party so arising or both, there the public place is conspicuously not present, as it is the intention of the Legislature that the Claims Tribunal has got the jurisdiction to decide the same and grant compensation against the owner, but as far as the insurance liability is concerned, the breach of the same is under Sections 147 and 149 where the public place is categorically mentioned. Relying on these provisions, learned counsel submits that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. Relying on these provisions, learned counsel submits that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent claimant submits that in the evidence, it is categorically mentioned that the owner of the vehicle had purchased the sugarcane from the father of the deceased i.e., claimant No.2 and from those fields, they were taking the jaggery to the mill and in that case, there is no question of using it for hire or reward as the said vehicle is used for the benefit of the owner or for the requirement of the owner. It is submitted that even the place where the accident had taken place cannot be said that it is a private place. He submits that as the accident had happened while they were returning from the mill back to the fields where the said place has access to all the public and once it is a place where all the public have an access, it falls within the definition of a public place as defined under Section 2 (34) of the Act and it is submitted that the Court below had rightly held that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. 6. Having heard the learned counsel from either side, perused the entire material on record. The submission of the learned counsel for the insurance company is two fold. One is that, as the accident had taken place in a private place, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Secondly, as the vehicle is used for a hire purpose which is contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy, as such the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company, it is appropriate to look at Section 146, 147, 149 and 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act which reads as follows: 146. Necessity for insurance against third party risk. — (1) No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter: 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. 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 27 [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: Provided that a policy shall not be required— (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee— (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation. —For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. 149. 149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.— (1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (l) of section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) 1[or under the provisions of section 163A] is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable there under, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments. (2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under subsection (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely:— (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely:— (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle— (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or 165. Claims Tribunals.— (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. 7. The definition of "public place" under Section 2(34) in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is: "(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." 8. It is the case of the claimant that the driver instead of driving the Tractor on the road, drove the vehicle on the bunds of sugarcane field in a rash and negligent manner. Due to this, the loader sitting on the tractor fell down and the tractor wheel ran over him. Basing on this, the learned counsel for the insurance company tries to submit that it is not a public place but it is a private place. The said submission has no legs to stand for the reason, admittedly those are the agricultural fields and all the public and the farmers have access to the bunds to reach their respective lands. As the public have a right to access, it would very much fall within the definition of 'public place'. Then, coming to the use of vehicle in a public place, under Section 147 (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act where in it says that "against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death or bodily [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized 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". In this case, there is a use of vehicle in a public place and because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, the accident had taken place. In this case, there is a use of vehicle in a public place and because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, the accident had taken place. Hence, the Court below had rightly held that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation, as the requirements of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, are satisfied by the claimant that during the course of employment, he had sustained the injuries. Then the other contention of the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company is that it is used for hire or reward and as it is only supposed to be used for an agricultural purpose, but not for hire or reward and as such they are not liable to pay the compensation also has no legs to stand for the reason that the evidence of the father of the deceased i.e., claimant No.2 has categorically stated in his evidence that the vehicle is used for the purpose of carrying the sugarcane which is purchased by the owner of the vehicle to the mill for the purpose of the jaggery. 9. In the case of Kalim Khan and Others Vs. Fimidabee and Others, (2018) 7 SCC 687 , the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court has held that where the accident in question arose out of use of motor vehicle, the fundamental requirement for a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is that the use of motor vehicle itself is sufficient. However, there should be a relationship existing between the violation and the accident caused where the Apex Court in the said case had held that the owner of the vehicle used the battery of the insured tractor to trigger a blast and when a stone came flying, it hit the deceased standing 300 feet away near the shop causing the fatal accident and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation as there is a use of motor vehicle. 10. In the light of the said evidence of the claimant, it cannot be said that the vehicle is used for hire or reward. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the concerned opinion that the Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation. 11. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurance company is dismissed. ii. 10. In the light of the said evidence of the claimant, it cannot be said that the vehicle is used for hire or reward. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the concerned opinion that the Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation. 11. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurance company is dismissed. ii. In this case, though there is no appeal filed by the claimant, the order does not contain the rate of interest. Hence, the claimant is entitled for the rate of interest at 6% per annum. iii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. iv. No costs. 12. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.