JUDGMENT

K.M. Joseph, J.

The interesting question that arises for consideration is whether the first respondent who was working as a cleaner in a bus could claim as a third party. The first respondent was travelling in a bus. One of the tyres burst. He was asked to replace the tyre. While he was putting the jacky near the rear wheel of the vehicle, the second respondent Driver moved the vehicle suddenly by which the jacky turned down and the first respondent was jammed under the bus. According to the first respondent, he suffered serious injuries. Accordingly, he filed a petition against the appellant who was the first respondent and owner of the vehicle, the second respondent who was the driver of the vehicle, and the third respondent which was the insurer.

MACA.582/08E 2 The tribunal found negligence on the part of the second respondent driver and awarded a sum of Rs.1,38,300/=. The third respondent took up the contention that it is not liable to indemnify the appellant. The appellant was set ex parte. The following is the finding of the tribunal on Issue No.4 which related to the liability of the third respondent:

“12. Issue No.4: It is contended by contesting 3rd respondent that th