Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narsingh And Anr. vs Balkishan And Ors. on 8 October, 1986
Equivalent citations: I(1987)ACC306, [1987]62COMPCAS519(MP)
JUDGMENT V.D. Gyani, J.
1. Appellants' father, Shambhoo, who was aged about 56 years, met with an accidental death on November 2, 1977, at about 10.30 p.m. as a result of negligent driving by respondent No. 2, Ramchandra, who was driving truck No. CPE-9359, The deceased was employed as a chowkidar in Modern Printing Press, Indore, and was drawing Rs. 175 per month as his salary.
2. The owner and driver (respondents Nos. 1 and 2) of the truck preferred to remain absent before the Tribunal in spite of service of notices and as such they were proceeded ex parte. It was the insurance company, respondent No. 3, who contested the claim mainly on the ground that the accident had taken place in a "private place" and, therefore, the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the other respondents.
3. The Tribunal, upholding the contention of the insurance company, awarded Rs. 7,000 as compensation against the owner and driver (respondents Nos. 1 and 2) of the truck respectively. Aggrieved by this award dated April 27, 1982, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No. 179 of 1977, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
4. Shri Rajpal, learned counsel for the appellants, has assailed the Tribunal's finding regarding " public place ". Shri Agrawal, appearing for the insurance company on the other hand has supported it. Shri Saxena, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, submitted that the insurer-respondent is liable to indemnify the other respondents.
5. The sole question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the printing press, where the accident took place, can be said to be a " public place " within the meaning of Section 95(1 )(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act. " Public place ", as denned by Section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, 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." The words " other place " occurring in the definition are significant in their connotation and should be given a wide import and interpretation. " Public place " is a place where the public can and do have access. It was urged by the respondents that the compound of the printing press is a private place. Even users of a private place and access by public can be interpreted as a " public place " within the meaning of Section 2(24) of the Act. It has come in evidence that trucks have access to the campus of the compound of the printing press and the accident itself has in fact occurred due to a dash by the truck. The mere fact that the compound or the campus of the press is owned by an individual would not make it a " private place ". It is not necessary that the place must be a public property.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that in the compound itself there was an office of the Text Books Corporation and public at large cannot be denied access to such an office. In this view of the matter, the place of accident is held to be a "public place". See Lanka Sarmma v. Rajendra Singh, AIR 1984 AP 32 ; [1986] 60 Comp Cas 48 (AP). The respondent-insurance company was, therefore, held to be liable for paying the compensation to the claimant-appellants jointly and severally with the other two respondents.
7. It was also contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the appellants' father, Shambhoo, was 65 years of age at the time of the accident on the basis of the postmortem report, exhibit P/1. As admitted by the doctor who performed the autopsy, it was mere guesswork on his part that he mentioned the age of the deceased as 65 years. His own evidence suggests that there could be a difference of 6 or 7 years in the assessment of the age of the deceased. It may be noted here that it was not on the basis of some data, symptoms or features of the deceased that the age was determined by the doctor. The age, as given in exhibit P/l cannot, therefore, be taken to be a sound basis for the determination of the age of the deceased, particularly in the absence of any physical data or symptoms furnished by the doctor performing the autopsy. The respondent-insurance company in its written statement has not specifically traversed over the age of the deceased as pleaded by the claimant-appellants and no such issue on this point was framed by the Tribunal. As stated above, the other two respondents, in spite of notice, remained absent and did not file their written statements. In such circumstances, the deceased, Shambhoo, is held to be of 56 years of age at the time of the accident.
8. The Tribunal has found the driver of the truck to be negligent. Shambhoo, the deceased, was squeezed in between the pillars of the gate and the body of the truck. A categorical finding has been recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of the truck, CPE-9359, by the driver-respondent No. 2 and there was no contributory negligence on the part of Shambhoo, the deceased.
9. It was deposed to by Narsingh that Shambhoo, his father, was earning Rs. 175 per month, but the Tribunal has denounced his statement as self-serving and disbelieved the same. The fact that the deceased was serving as a chowkidar in the press appears to be no justifiable ground for disbelieving the statement made on oath that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 175 per month. It is accordingly held that the deceased was earning Rs. 175 per month and at the time of his accidental death, he was 56 years of age. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 7,000 as compensation. This amount is too meagre. Considering the earning capacity and the age of the deceased, the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 15,000 (rupees fifteen thousand) and the respondents, including the insurance company are jointly and severally held liable to pay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal stands allowed, and the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 15,000 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Counsel's fee shall be as per the Schedule, if certified.