AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Kannan, J.—The claim arises out of death of a cleaner of a vehicle and the accident was said to have taken place on 4.9.1998 when
cement bags had been loaded in a truck bearing registration No. HNG-3699 and when the driver had given instructions to cover the cement bags
with taurpaulin and tie them with rope. At that time the insured''s vehicle GJ-IV-4266 came in reverse direction without noticing the deceased
doing his work and crushed him between two vehicles. The accident, as spoken to by PW-2 Ramesh Kumar, who has employed by the same
owner where the deceased was working was that the accident had taken place outside the factory premises in a yard. In the cross examination, it
was elicited as follows:
The yard where truck No. HNG-3699 was parked for covering the cement bags with Tarpolin was within the boundary walls of the factory. A
number of trucks were parked in the yard. Truck belonging to one Banwar Singh driver was also parked at that place in the yard. I do not know
the number of the truck on which Banwar Singh was employed as driver.
The Tribunal found the driver of the insured to be negligent and granted compensation. While assessing the amount, the Tribunal took the
income to be Rs. 2,500/-, deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses and provided for 2/3rd as contribution to the mother who was the claimant. The
multiplier of 17 there adopted and Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 3,48,000/-.
In appeal it is contended that the accident had taken place not in a public place and therefore, there could be no claim for compensation against
the Insurance Company. I have gone through the entire pleadings given by the Appellant for the third Respondent and it is nowhere stated that the
accident had not occurred at a public place. On the other hand, the contention was one of general denial of the accident itself. Consequently, mere
was not even a point for consideration whether the accident have taken place in a public place or not. In the absence of pleading I refuse the
Appellant to urge for such a contention in appeal for the first time. Learned Counsel refers to certain decisions which I think are not necessary
traverse. I may only to say that ''public place'' is any place where any member of a public has a right of access whether it is a thoroughfare or not.
There are any number of cases that govern the situation where various courts have held that factory premises are public places. The liability of the
Insurance Company is safely and surely secured for the claimants. The appeal by the Insurance Company is consequently, dismissed.
As regards the claim for enhancement of compensation, the Tribunal has taken the income of the cleaner to be Rs. 2,500/- and applied the
multiplier as provided in Schedule-II. The only lapse if it could be stated is that it does not provide for loss to estate which schedule-II provides at
Rs. 2,500/- that is only additional amount that could be added to the award already passed by the Tribunal. The amount shall also attract interest
at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment.
The cross appeal is allowed, partly to provide for a marginal increase of what the Tribunal omitted to provide for. The appeal is disposed of as
above.