Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 670 (AP)

Amar Kumar Dixit v. T. K. Surendera Sharma

2018-09-12

SHAMEEM AKTHER

body2018
JUDGMENT : Shameem Akther, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act', for brevity), is filed by the appellants-claimants, challenging the Order, dated 08.12.2004, passed in O.P.No.582 of 1998, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar ('the Tribunal', for brevity). 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants would contend that the Tribunal held that the place of the subject accident, i.e., within the compound of Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad, is a private place and dismissed the claim against the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, which is unsustainable under law. The compound of Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad, is not a private place since many Government officials perform their official duty there. The office of the Governor of a State is a Public Office and as such, the place from where the Governor performs his official duties is deemed to be a public place. The claimants, along with others, went to Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad, for a meeting with the Governor on "Satya Establishment" at village level. The Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim against the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. Further, grant of compensation of Rs. 2,30,280/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment by the Tribunal in favour of the appellants-claimants is meagre and ultimately prayed to fasten the liability to pay the compensation against the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and to enhance the same. 4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company would contend that P.W.1 (first claimant) admitted in his evidence that the place of occurrence of the subject accident is a private place. As per Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act, the insurance coverage is valid only in case of occurrence of accident in a public place. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim against the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. Further, the Tribunal had taken into consideration all the relevant factors and granted just and reasonable amount as compensation. There are no circumstances to interfere with the impugned order and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the order under challenge. 5. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are as follows:- 1. There are no circumstances to interfere with the impugned order and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the order under challenge. 5. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are as follows:- 1. Whether the place of occurrence of the subject accident, i.e., within the compound of Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad, is a 'public place' or a 'private place'. 2. Whether the compensation of Rs. 2,30,280/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till payment granted by the Tribunal in favour of the appellants-claimants is liable to be enhanced/reduced? 3. Whether the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the appellants-claimants. 6. The averments in the claim petition, in brief, are that on 26.05.1997, sixteen people, including the deceased-Pravina Dixit, went to Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad, for a meeting with the Governor of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh at 05:30 PM on the said day with regard to social work concerning "Satya Establishment". The said meeting concluded by 08:30 PM. All the delegates came out the meeting hall. The deceased-Pravina Dixit and another person were standing in front of the offending Tata Sumo Jeep bearing registration No.AP-22-A-7500, which was about ten to fifteen yards away from the deceased. All of a sudden, the driver of the said offending Tata Sumo Jeep started the jeep and drove the same in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. The deceased fell down and the offending Tata Sumo ran over the body of the deceased. The deceased was immediately shifted to NIMS, Hyderabad, and the doctors at NIMS, Hyderabad, declared that the deceased was brought dead. Point No.1:- 7. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants is that the place of occurrence of the subject accident, i.e., within the compound of Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad, is a 'public place' and not a 'private place'. In this context, it is apt to extract to the definition of 'public place" under Section 2 (34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2(34) 'public place' 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. 8. 2(34) 'public place' 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. 8. A plain reading of the definition of 'public place', shows that the place, whether or not a thoroughfare, can be considered as a 'public place', if the public have got a right of access thereto. In other words, even a private place, to which the public at large have a right of access in any manner whatsoever, would also fall within the meaning of 'public place'. Thus, when a private place is made accessible to the members of the public, though restricted or regulated, the only plausible conclusion that could be drawn is that such private place would amount to 'public place' as defined under Section 2(34) of the Act. 9. This issue has been considered in detail by a Full Bench of Bombay High Court in Pandurang v. New India Life Insurance Company Limited and Others, (1988) AIR Bombay 248. In the said case, the accident took place in the compound of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited. The entire premises, including the main road where the accident took place, belonged to the said company. Generally a person entering the factory premises is supposed to have permission or authority. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, on consideration of the relevant statutory provisions, held that the place where the accident took place was a public place. It is relevant to note the following observations made by the Full Bench. "The term 'public place' is a term of art, the same having been defined specifically by Sub-clause (34) of Section 2 of the Act. The first thing to remember with regard to the definition is that it is an inclusive one. Secondly, it, in terms, makes it clear that any road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, is a public place for the purposes of the Act, the only condition being that the public should have a right of access to it. Thirdly, the expression used in the definition is "a right of access" and not "access as of right". Thirdly, the expression used in the definition is "a right of access" and not "access as of right". Lastly, when it states that any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage, is a public place, it shows that it is not so much concerned with the ownership of the place as with its user. The definition of "public place" under the Act is, therefore, wide enough to include any place which members of public use and to which they have a right of access. The right of access may be permissive, limited, restricted or regulated by oral or written permission, by tickets, passes or badges or on payment of fee. The use may be restricted generally or to particular purpose or purposes. What is necessary is that the place must be accessible to the members of the public and be available for their use, enjoyment, avocation other purpose." 10. Similar view has been expressed by a Full Bench of Madras High Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Parvathi Devi and Others, (1999) ACJ 1520, wherein, it was held as follows: "The definition of 'public place' is very wide. A perusal of the same reveals that the public at large has a right to access, though that right is regulated or restricted. It is also seen that this Act is beneficial legislation, so also the law of interpretation has to be construed in the benefit of public. In the overall legal position and the fact that if the language is simple and unambiguous, it has to be construed in the benefit of the public, we are of the view that the word 'public place', wherever used as a right or controlled in any manner whatsoever, would attract Section 2(34) of the Act. In view of this, as stated, the private place used with permission or without permission would amount to be a 'public place'." 11. In the instant case, admittedly, the subject accident took place within the compound wall of Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad. This itself makes it clear that the place of subject accident was accessible to the members of the public, though permissive, limited, restricted or regulated. In the instant case, admittedly, the subject accident took place within the compound wall of Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad. This itself makes it clear that the place of subject accident was accessible to the members of the public, though permissive, limited, restricted or regulated. Further, no rebuttal evidence has been adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company to show that the entry into Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad, was restricted or obstructed as on the date of accident. In the absence of same, this Court is unable to agree with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the place where the subject accident took place is not a 'public place' within the meaning of Section 2(34) of the Act. As stated above, even a private place to which members of public have a right of access, though permissive, limited, restricted or regulated, shall be held to be a 'public place' and the said question has to be determined taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the evidence on record. 12. For the reasons stated supra, I have no doubt whatsoever to hold that the subject accident took place is a 'public place', within the meaning of Section 2(34) of the Act. Thus the requirement under Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act is satisfied and the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal. This point is accordingly answered in favour of the appellants-claimants and against the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. Point Nos.2 and 3 13. As far as quantum of compensation by the Tribunal in favour of the appellants-claimants is concerned, the Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence on record, took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 2,000/-, deducted 1/3rd of it towards personal expenses of the deceased and by applying relevant multiplier 16' to the age of the deceased, granted an amount of Rs. 2,13,280/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal also granted an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs. 2,30,280/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 14. It is apt to refer to the recent decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs. 2,30,280/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 14. It is apt to refer to the recent decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 6 ALD 170, wherein, it was held as follows:- "Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years." Taking into consideration the aforementioned decision of the Apex Court, this Court is inclined to grant Rs. 40,000/- to the 1st appellant/1st claimant (husband of the deceased) towards loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- to the appellants-claimants towards loss of estate and another Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the appellants-claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 2,83,280/- rounded off to Rs. 2,83,000/- (Rs.2,13,280/- + Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 15,000/-). The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount granted as compensation from the date of petition till the date of payment. This Court is inclined to award interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation, from the date of petition till realisation. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part, modifying the Order, dated 08.12.2004, passed in M.V.O.P.No.582 of 1998 by the Tribunal, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 2,30,280 to Rs. 2,83,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation carries interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realisation. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation to the appellants-claimants along with the 1st respondent herein/driver-cum-owner of the offending Tata Sumo Jeep bearing registration No.AP-22-A7500. The other terms of the Order under challenge remain unaltered. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.