Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Shayamwati And Ors on 29 August, 2022
Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2872/2018
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Alwar, Tehsil And
District Alwar, At Present At 'Man Upasana' 6th Floor, Sardar
Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Its Authorized Signatory,
(Insurance Company of JCB No RJ 40 EA 0008
----Appellant/Non-Claimant
Versus
1. Smt. Shayamwati W/o Late Rati Ram, aged about 34
years,
2. Lokesh S/o Late Rati Ram , aged about 15 years
3. Akesh S/o Late Rati Ram aged about 12 years,
Claimants No. 2 To 3 Being Minor Represented Through
Natural Guardian Smt. Shayamwati,
All R/o Chandpur, Tehsil Kathumber, District Alwar
4. Harni Ram S/o Shri Panna Ram, aged about 66 years
5. Smt. Lachho W/o Harni Ram,
Both R/o Village Chandpur, Tehsil Kathumber, District
Alwar Rajasthan
Claimants/respondents
6. Mahendra S/o Shri Chand, R/o Village Burheda, Police Station Khusheda, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar (Driver)
7. Poswal Crane Service, Village Burheda, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar, Through Owner/proprietor Mehendrs S/o Shri Chand (Owner)
8. Hema Autometiv P. Ltd, S.P., 17 A, RIICO Industrial Area Neemrana, District Alwar, Office At Sachidanand Farm House, Kishangarh Village Near DDA Sports Coomplex, Vasant Kund, Delhi 70
----Non-Claimants/Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3795/2018
1. Smt Shyamwati W/o Late Ratiram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Chandpur Tehsil Kathumar District Alwar (Raj)
2. Lokesh S/o Late Ratiram, Aged About 15 Years, R/o Village Chandpur Tehsil Kathumar District Alwar (Raj)
3. Ankesh S/o Late Ratiram, Aged About 12 Years, R/o (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:19:57 AM) (2 of 9) [CMA-2872/2018] Village Chandpur Tehsil Kathumar District Alwar (Raj) No. 2 And 3 Are Minor Through Natural Guardian mother Smt Shyamwati W/o Late Ratiram, R/o Village Chandpur Tehsil Kathumar District Alwar (Raj)
4. Harniram S/o Shri Pannaram, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Village Chandpur Tehsil Kathumar District Alwar (Raj)
5. Smt. Lachchho W/o Shri Harniram, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Chandpur Tehsil Kathumar District Alwar (Raj)
-----Appellants/Claimants Versus
1. Mahendra S/o Shri Chandara, R/o Village Burheda Police Satation Khushheda Tehsil Tijara District Alwar (Raj)
2. Poswal Crane Service, Village Burheda Tehsil Tijara District Alwar (Raj) Through Its Owner/properiter Mahendra S/o Shri Chandra
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Alwar Tehsil And District Alwar Insurance Company Of Vehicle JCB No. RJ-40-EA-0008
4. Hema Automotive Pvt. Ltd., S.P. 17-A RIICO Industrial Area Neemrana District Alwar Office Address Sachidanand Farm House Kishangarh Village DDA Sports Complex Ke Pass, Basant Kunj Delhi -70
----Non-Claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rizwan Ahmed for Insurance Company Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma (CMA No.3795/2018) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikash Kumar Jakhar (Respondent in CMA No. 2872/2018 and appellant in CMA No.3795/2018) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Judgment 29/08/2022 Since the award has been passed against the driver/owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle and no directions have been issued against the respondent- Hema Automotive Pvt. (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:19:57 AM)
(3 of 9) [CMA-2872/2018] Ltd., hence, under these circumstances requirement of service upon respondent- Hema Automotive Pvt. Ltd. is dispensed with.
Both these appeals arise out of impugned judgment and award dated 16.04.2018 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar (for short 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 392/2014, by which the claim petition filed by the claimants has been allowed and the Insurance Company has been directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,16,720/- along with interest @ 6% per annum.
S.B. CMA No. 2872/2018 (Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Shayamwati and Ors.) Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that instant case does not fall within the purview of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act of 1988') as the accident has not occurred within the public place. Counsel submits that the accident has occurred in the factory premises of Hema Automotive Pvt. Ltd. when the driver of the crane was uplifting the beam from the crane. The beam fell down on the deceased and he sustained certain injuries and died thereafter. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the provisions of the Act of 1988 are not applicable and the claim petition filed by the claimants was not maintainable. Even then the Tribunal has entertained the same and passed the impugned order. Counsel further submits that the accident occurred on 12.03.2014 and the FIR has been lodged after a long lapse of time i.e. on 14.05.2014. Counsel submits that initially a Murg Report was registered in which there was no such mention that the incident has occurred because of negligence of the driver of the crane. Counsel submits that after investigation, (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:19:57 AM) (4 of 9) [CMA-2872/2018] charge-sheet was submitted against the driver for the offence under Section 304A IPC. Hence, there was no negligence on the part of the driver, so, the claim petition filed by the claimants was not maintainable. Even then the Tribunal has considered all these material facts and entertained the claim petition and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, interference of this Court is warranted.
Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants and driver/owner opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant and submitted that though the accident occurred in the factory premises but there was access of the persons and as per Section 2(34) of the Act of 1988, the factory premises cannot be treated as a private place and the same was a public place. Hence, the provisions of the Act of 1988 were attracted and the Tribunal has not committed any error in entertaining the claim petition filed by the claimants. Counsel further submits that without loss of time the Murg Report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered in which it was specifically mentioned that the incident has occurred due to fall of beam from the crane. Counsel further submits in continuation of the Murg Report, FIR was lodged by the family members of the deceased on 14.05.2014. Counsel submits that this is not a case in which the report was not given to the Police immediately after the incident. Counsel submits that all these objections were entertained and considered by the Tribunal and after rejecting the same, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition in part and rightly directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation.
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:19:57 AM)
(5 of 9) [CMA-2872/2018] In support of his contentions, counsel for the claimants has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
1. Rajan Vs. John and Ors., reported in 2009 ACJ 2631;
2. Pinnaboyina Chittamma and Ors. Vs. B. Narasinga Rao and Ors., reported in 2003 (2) TAC 757 (AP) and
3. Sharestha Devi and Ors. Vs. Kishori Lal and Ors., reported in 2017 ACJ 1951 Lastly, counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company may kindly be dismissed.
Heard. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material made available to the Court.
This fact is not in dispute that the deceased was working as a labour in the premises of Hema Automotive Pvt. Ltd. and on the fateful day i.e. on 12.03.2014 on account of sudden fall of beam from the crane he sustained certain injuries. This fact is not in dispute that the respondent- Mahendra was operating the crane at that time and because of his negligence the beam fell down and the deceased sustained certain injuries which resulted into his death. This fact is also not in dispute that immediately after the incident, Murg Report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered and the matter was investigated and in the meantime, FIR was also registered by the family members of the deceased.
Now the question comes for consideration of this Court is "Whether the premises where the incident has occurred is a private place or a public place?"
Section 2(34) of the Act of 1988 defines public place as follows:-
"2(34) 'public place' means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:19:57 AM) (6 of 9) [CMA-2872/2018] right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage;"
From perusal of the definition clause of 'public place' it is clear that public place does not have a restricted meaning inasmuch as it is not to be taken as a place where the public have uncontrolled access at all times. Public place for the purposes of the Act is to be understood with reference to the place to which vehicles have access. In the instant case, the factory premises where the incident occurred gave access to not only labourers but also the vehicles to enter. Appreciating these facts, the Tribunal has came to the conclusion that the factory premises of Hema Automotive Pvt. Ltd. cannot be treated as a private place.
The Kerala High Court in the case of Rajan (supra) and Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Pinnaboyina Chittamma have dealt with the issue and held that a place where the public has access can always be treated as a public place in view of Section 2(34) of the Act of 1988. Hence, the Tribunal has not committed any error by holding that place of occurrence was a public place and the provisions of the Act of 1988 were attracted.
So far as the contention raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company that there was delay of more than 2 months in lodging the FIR as the FIR was lodged on 14.05.2014 while the accident has occurred on 12.03.2014 is concerned, the same is not tenable because this is not a case where the matter was reported for the first time after a delay of more than two months to the Police. On the contrary, in the instant case the Murg Report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was lodged immediately without loss of time and this fact was also mentioned in the said Murg Report that the injured/deceased has sustained injuries because of fall of (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:19:57 AM) (7 of 9) [CMA-2872/2018] beam from the crane. FIR was registered on 14.05.2014 in continuation of the Murg Report. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the crane for the offence under Section 304A IPC.
I find no substance in the argument of the counsel for the Insurance Company that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the crane because no charge-sheet was submitted against him for the offence under Section 279 IPC. Bare perusal of the record indicates that after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the driver of the crane for the offence under Section 304A IPC which clearly indicates that the driver was rash and negligent in doing his act and because of that act the incident has occurred which has resulted in death of the deceased.
In view of the above discussion, there is no force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.
SB CMA No. 3795/2018 (Smt. Shyamwati and Ors. Vs. Mahendra and Ors.) This appeal has been filed by the claimants appellants for enhancement of award passed by the Tribunal.
Counsel for the claimants submits that the accident has occurred on 12.03.2014 and he was an unskilled labour and the minimum wages of an unskilled labour at the prevailing time was Rs. 189/- per day but without any basis the Tribunal has determined the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,200/-. Counsel submits that as per the Notification/Circular issued by the Department of Labour, Government of Rajasthan the monthly wages of an unskilled labour was Rs. 5,670/- (Rs. 189 X 30) at (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:19:57 AM) (8 of 9) [CMA-2872/2018] the prevailing time. Hence, the claimants have suffered loss of income. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove the amount of award be enhanced.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the appellant claimant has correctly taken into consideration the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment dated 16.04.2018 does not call for any interference of this Court.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 16.04.2018 passed by the Tribunal as well as the material available on the record.
This fact is not in dispute that the deceased was an unskilled labour and at the time of accident the monthly wages of an unskilled labour was Rs. 5,670/- (Rs. 189 X 30), so the Tribunal has committed an error in determining the monthly income of deceased as Rs. 4,200/-.
Thus, the award is re-computed as under:-
Monthly income Rs. 189/- X 30 = Rs. 5,670/-
Annual income Rs. 5,670 x12 = Rs.68,040/- per annum
Multiplier to be applied 16
Rs. 68,040 X 16 = Rs.10,88,640/-
Add 40 per cent towards Rs. 10,88,640 + Rs. 4,35,456 future prospects = Rs.15,24,096/-
Deduction 1/4 towards Rs. 15,24,096/- - Rs. 3,81,024
personal expenses = Rs.11,43,072/-
Conventional Head Rs. 70,000/-
Total compensation Rs. 11,43,072/- + Rs. 70,000 =
awardable Rs. 12,13,072/-
Less amount awarded by the Rs. 12,13,072/- - Rs. 9,16,720 =
Tribunal Rs.2,96,352/-
Enhanced amount of Rs. 2,96,352/-
compensation
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:19:57 AM)
(9 of 9) [CMA-2872/2018]
Thus, an amount of Rs. 2,96,352/- is enhanced in the present case. The respondent - Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,96,352/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 16.04.2018 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment is made.
It is further ordered that out of the enhanced amount the Tribunal shall disburse a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the Saving Bank Account of the claimants-appellants and the balance amount of the enhanced compensation be invested in FDRs in any Nationalized Bank initially for a period of three years and interest accrued on the said amount shall be paid to the appellants- claimants on monthly basis.
With the above observations, the appeal filed by the claimants stands disposed of.
All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith. Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment in the connected file also.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ritu/35-36 (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:19:57 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)