9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said petitioners were riding on the motor bike bearing registration No.KL-02AA-7503 from North to South through the eastern side of Ayathil - Mevaram bypass road, the aforesaid Qualis car being driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life from the opposite direction came to the wrong side of the road and knocked down the petitioners thereby they sustained injuries. 3. The appellant herein, in whose name the said Qualis car was registered, along with the 2nd respondent driver, has filed written objections in both the cases by taking up inter alia the following contentions:- (i) The said car did never involve in any accident. (ii) The petitioners came in a rash and negligent manner from a byr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The present stand taken by the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the appellant is that the appellant as well as the 2nd respondent herein were in the lawful exercise of a sovereign function as they were in search of drug pedallers involved in Narcotic Substances. It is argued that as the 2nd respondent was the department driver, who was on official duty and was driving the vehicle as a part of his duty, the State has no vicarious liability in the matter as the duty was in discharge of sovereign functions. There is little scope for the said argument. The appellant, who is the first respondent, was sued in his capacity as the registered owner of the vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle was not covered by an insurance policy. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies on account of the rash and negligent driving of a government official and the liability cast upon the State herein is in the form of a liability on the part of the registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. 10. On going through the Cross Objection, this Court does not find any merit in it. The Tribunal has considered the evidence and all the matters in its correct perspective and has arrived at the correct conclusion with regard to the compensation payable to the first respondent in both these appeals. The impugned common judgment does not call for any interference at all. Both these appeals as well as the Cross Objection are devoid of merits, and are only to be dismissed, and I do so. In the result, both these ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
