A R JISHA Vs. SHAJU PAUL @ SHAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the registered owner of a vehicle, who was mulcted with 50% liability, finding contributory negligence on the part of the injured-1st respondent at 50%. The appeal is filed against the liability mulcted on the registered owner, for which purpose the learned Counsel for the appellant also seeks reference to the 1st award passed by the Tribunal.

(2.) The accident occurred, as is evident from the records, when a lorry was parked on the eastern side of a road lying from south to north, being Kothamangalam - Muvattupuzha National Highway. The lorry, which was proceeding to the south, was parked on the eastern side and the injured, who was travelling in a motor cycle in the southern direction, hit the backside of the vehicle and injured himself. The claim was filed with two registered owners in the party array. An award was passed on 11.03.2013 granting a compensation of Rs. 1,77,600/-, absolving the liability of the Insurance Company for reason of no policy having been taken since the cheque issued for the premium was dishonoured. The two registered owners arrayed in the claim as respondents as also the driver was mulcted with the liability. Obviously, the liability would be on the registered owners. One of the said persons, who was the 1st respondent before the Tribunal, filed an application for restoration of the case to the file, which was allowed by order dated 18.03.2014, produced along with the appeal. After setting aside the award, a revised award was passed, as is seen from the appeal, on 21.07.2014. The award passed at the earlier point was affirmed on all respects except the liability being shifted to the present registered owner and the driver, who were respectively respondents 2 and 3 before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent before the Tribunal, who has the vicarious liability to satisfy the amount, is before this Court claiming that there is absolutely no reason why the 50% negligence was fixed on the driver, especially when the lorry was parked and there is no criminal case against the driver of the lorry.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant would specifically take me through the portion in para 8 of the earlier award, which, according to him, proves that there can be found no negligence on the part of the lorry driver: