AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—The Insurance Company is in appeal. The grievance exposed in this appeal is against the award passed by the Tribunal mulcting the liability on the appellant insurer to satisfy the claim on behalf of the insured.
Allegedly the lorry insured with the appellant Insurance Company was parked in the residential premises of the deceased Salim where he had constructed a new house. The deceased along with another person was unloading marble slabs from the lorry. Unfortunately one of the heavy marble slabs slipped off their hands and fell on their bodies causing injuries to them. Salim succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained in spite of the earnest effort taken by the Medical College Hospital to save his life. According to the claimants the accident occurred while the driver of the lorry suddenly and without giving any signal took the vehicle forward. On conclusion of trial the learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleading and evidence, awarded compensation to the respondents claimants who are the legal representatives of the victim and the appellant insurance company was saddled with the liability of paying the compensation.
We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents claimants. The impugned award was perused.
It was argued by the learned senior counsel that despite the admitted pleadings of the claimants that the accident had occurred in the premises of the newly built house of the deceased Salim the Tribunal omitted to consider the fact that the accident had occurred not in a public place to have statutory coverage. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, the liability to satisfy the claim is cast under the statute only if the accident occurred at a public place. In the instant case the alleged accident occurred outside the house of the deceased as admitted by the claimants. So it was contended that no liability could have been fixed on the appellant insurer in respect of the alleged accident.
The learned counsel for the respondents claimants per contra relying on the decision of this Court in Rajan P. v K.J. John and Others (2009(1) KHC 631) would argue that though the accident had occurred in the house premises of the deceased it can be reckoned as a public place for the purpose of awarding compensation as public were having access to the residence of the deceased. In the case referred to above the Tribunal rejected the petition of the claimant on the ground that the accident occurred inside the construction premises which was not a public place. However, this Court was of the view that the public place does not have a restricted meaning as such and it is not to be taken as a place where the public had uncontrolled access at all times. This Court thus opined that the meaning of the public place has to be wide enough to cover private premises where goods vehicle is allowed entry. Merely because the accident occurred while the vehicle was stationary the claim for compensation cannot be rejected, it was held.
In the instant case it is true that the accident had occurred in the house premises of the deceased. But the appellant does not have a case that the access to public to the place of occurrence was restricted in any way. It is also worthy to note that the registered owner of the offending vehicle as well as the driver did not contest. Viewed in the profile of the decision in Rajan''s case referred to above, we are of the view that the accident in this case also had occurred at a public place and the contention raised by the appellant Insurance Company that they do not have the statutory duty to cover the risk of the deceased does not appear to be convincing.
On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation to the respondents claimants who are the legal heirs of the deceased and saddling the appellant Insurance Company with the liability of paying the compensation. In the result, we dismiss the appeal but without any order as to costs.