NAGARATHINAM Vs. MURUGESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, at the instance of the owner of the lorry bearing registration No. TDU 1536, is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chengalpattu in M.A.C.O.P. No. 459 of 1982 awarding a sum of Rs. 16,400/ - as compensation to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the death of their son Raman in an accident that took place on 20.7.1982 involving the lorry of the appellant

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, their son, deceased Raman, was sleeping under a tree near the petrol bunk in Tambararn Sanatorium on the night of 20.7.1982 and at that time, the lorry belonging to the appellant, which was driven negligently, ran over him and killed him and in respect of that, compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - should be awarded to them. In the counter filed by the appellant, she contended that the lorry was parked in a corner as deceased Raman was sleeping under the tree and owing to the vibration caused by the passing traffic on the highway, the lorry started moving resulting in the accident and deceased Raman was also responsible for the accident. The quantum of compensation was also characterized to be excessive and on the higher side. The third respondent, insurance company, in its counter, besides adopting the counter of the appellant, put forth the plea that the accident did not happen in a public place and, therefore, no liability could be fastened on the insurance company.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant first contended that the evidence clearly establishes that the accident took place outside the petrol bunk premises and, therefore, the third respondent, insurance company, would be liable to pay the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the third respondent, insurance company, submitted that even according to the plan submitted along with the accident report by the appellant, marked as Exh. B -2, the appellant had accepted that the accident had taken place within the premises of the petrol bunk and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the accident had taken place within the petrol bunk premises.