NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. CHAMELI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An accident took place on 07.09.2017 in the premises of respondent No.3 resulting in the death of Rajpal. The premises of respondent No.3 is a sawmill and the accident took place while the offending vehicle (truck) was being reversed in a rash and negligent manner. An FIR dtd. 07.09.2017 was got registered by Vikash Chauhan (owner of respondent No.3), in which, the name of the driver was mentioned as 'Satyavir '. Thereafter, the name was changed to Sukhbir Singh- respondent No.2 after the complainant submitted an affidavit dtd. 15.09.2017. Claim petition was filed on 02.11.2017 and compensation of Rs.17,83,600.00 has been awarded.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no accident in fact took place. Death occurred during the course of employment but to avoid liability, Vikash Chauhan, in collusion with the claimant got an FIR registered. Written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 (driver and owner) shows that the accident has been denied by them. The Tribunal was thus in error in returning a finding that the accident in fact took place. Further, it has been submitted that respondent No.2 is not proved to be the driver of the vehicle. This is evident from the fact that at the very first instance, the name of the driver was mentioned as 'Satyavir' (reference FIR registered on 07.09.2017) but the name was changed on the basis of a supplementary statement made by the complainant accompanied by an affidavit on 15.09.2017. The complainant did not appear in the witness box to prove the identity of respondent No.2. From this, it can be inferred that Satyavir did not hold a valid driving licence and therefore, his name was replaced. PW-3-Kishori Lal was actually not an eye-witness. He was planted as such and this is proved from his cross-examination, in which, he has admitted that he has not been cited as an eye-witness in the criminal case nor he has ever been associated with the investigation. PW-3 is none other than the brother-in- law of the deceased. The appellant was not liable to pay the compensation as the accident did not take place at a 'public place'. The factory premises is not a 'public place' and thus, the insurer cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured. He relies upon Nagarathinam vs. Murugesan and others, 1991 ACJ 673. Finally, it has been submitted that the claimant could not produce any proof of income of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has held so but has erred in calculating the compensation on the basis of monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. Minimum wages payable at the relevant time were Rs.8300/-. Compensation thus, works out to Rs.12,12,384/-.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that motor accident claims cases have to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Thus, the Tribunal was not in error in returning the finding that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending truck. Regarding the location of the accident, he relies upon judgment of this Court dtd. 23.10.2019 passed in FAO No.8307 of 2014 titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vaneeta and others, in which, a factory premises has been held to be a 'public place'. No argument has, however, been raised regarding the monthly earnings of the deceased.