In absence of contradiction in oral evidence, evidence of claimants could not be rejected.

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

Aggrieved by the finding with regard to liability and 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 first respondents son was giving directions to the lorry bearing Registration No. TN04-C-3589 owned by the fourth respondent and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, placed his hands on the right side of the head light 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 electrocution, he was electrocuted. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Victoria Hospital, where he was declared as dead. In connection with the death, a case in UDR No. 15 of 1996 was registered at Byatarayanapura Police Station. Parents have claimed compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the death of their son.

3. The appellant-Insurance Company resisted the claim petition and denied that the employment of the deceased Sivakumar as a cleaner. They contended that the alleged accident is within the premises of seventh respondent, 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 the injuries caused in the motor accident. They also submitted that the vehicle involved in the accident, i. e., AP03-U-74 was not insured with the respondent on the date of 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 any such complaint, it cannot be presumed that the deceased died due to the 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.

4. Before the Tribunal, father of the deceased examined himself as PW.l, and PW.2 is the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN04-C-3589. Exhibit P-1 - F.I.R., Exhibit P-2 - Rough sketch to show the place of occurrence; Exhibit P-3 -R.C. Book of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 04 C 3589 and Exhibit P-4 - Policy for the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN04 C 3589 were marked on behalf of the respondents/claimants. On behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, an Assistant dealing with the policy and a Senior Assistant of the Insurance Company were examined as RW.1 and RW.2 respectively. Exhibit B-1 - Policy and Exhibit B-2 -Letter issued by the Insurance Company to the advocate were marked.

5. The Tribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, found that the accident had occurred in the manner as set out in the claim petition and fastened the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs. 2,56,000/-with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition.

6. Heard, Mr.V.R.Subramaniam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has failed to note that the accident had occurred within the private premises viz., Mother Nature and Sons, Bangalore, which is not the public place and therefore, the claim petition is not maintainable. Placing reliance on the contents of Exhibit P-1-F.I.R