UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. V DHARMARASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the finding with regard to liability and the quantum of compensation, the insurance company has preferred this appeal.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the appeal are as follows: On 28. 9. 1996 at 5 p. m. , when respondent No. 1's son was giving directions to the lorry bearing registration No. TN 04-C 3589 owned by the respondent no. 4 and insured with the appellant insurance company, he placed his hands on the right side of the headlight and at that time, a high tension electric wire came in contact with the right edge of the container carried in the lorry and due to electricity, he was electrocuted. Immediately he was taken to the Government Victoria Hospital, where he was declared dead. In connection with the death, a case in U. D. R. No. 15 of 1996 was registered at Byatarayanapura Police station. Parents have claimed compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 for death of their son.

(3.) THE appellant insurance company resisted the claim petition and denied the employment of the deceased Sivakumar as a cleaner. They contended that the alleged accident is within the premises of respondent no. 7, viz. , Mother Nature and Sons and it is not in the public place and, therefore, the claim petition is not maintainable. They further contended that the criminal case registered only under section 174 of criminal Procedure Code and that was not registered under section 304-A of Indian penal Code and, therefore, it is a mysterious death and not arising out of an accident. They submitted that as the genesis involved in the motor accident claims is the rash and negligent act of the driver of a motor vehicle in a public place as enumerated under section 147 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, the present petition as framed by the claimants is not maintainable. Even in the post-mortem certificate, there is no opinion found that the deceased died due to injuries caused in the motor accident. They also submitted that motor vehicle involved in the accident, i. e. , AP 03-U 74 was not insured with the respondent on the date of the accident, i. e. , on 28. 3. 1996 and if the container had come in contact with a high tension wire, the container would have been damaged and the driver would have reported the same in the complaint. In the absence of any such complaint, it cannot be presumed that the deceased died due to electrocution. They disputed the age and income of the deceased. In fine, they submitted that the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.