the vehicle at all. On the other hand, he was seated on the ceiling of the jeep and the accident took place when the driver applied brake and he fell on the road and got killed. There was evidence placed by the driver, who had a different version to give. He stated that the deceased person was seated in the middle of the car and when he applied brake, he fell out of the vehicle. It is rather a strange occurrence of somebody falling out unscientifically by applying a brake towards the back of the vehicle when his outward projection must have been in the direction of the vehicle itself. I do not still want to examine these issues on how artificial the evidence is for the evidence grapples with a poignant situation of a man dying leaving behind three minor children and a young widow. The Tribunal found the version of the driver was not correct and held that the deceased was travelling in the roof of the jeep, but still rooted the liability on the insurer by the fact that the driver was negligent in allowing a person to be seated atop the jeep and if there was negligence on the part of the driver, by vicarious liability, it was fastened to the owner which in turn resulted in the insurer answering a claim.
