1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. Despite valid service of notice, nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the driver of the Maruti Zen Car-respondent no.5 when the matter was taken up.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that though contributory negligence has been attributed on the person, who is the driver of the Maruti Zen Car in which the deceased was travelling and the driver was a minor not having a valid driving licence but still the liability of payment of 50 per cent of the compensation amount has been fastened on the appellant, without the right to recover it from the owner of the Bolero-respondent no.3.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further submits that respondent no.7-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., who is the insurer of the Maruti Zen Car in question in which the deceased was travelling, has been given the right to recover it from the owner of the Maruti Zen Car i.e., respondent no.6 though deleted, whereas, the appellant-Insurance Company which has insured the Bolero Car, which was wrongly parked and into which the Maruti Zen Car in which the deceased was travelling had collided, has not been given the same benefit. It was submitted that if at all, there was contributory negligence, the same parameters should have been applied. Thus, it was submitted that respondents no.3 and 6 should have been evenly treated in passing the order of recovery by giving the right of recovery also to the appellant-Insurance Company from the owner of the Bolero in question-respondent no.3.

6. Learned counsel for respondent no.7-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. submits that he has nothing to submit as his interest has been protected.

7. No other respondents have either appeared before us or has filed any counter affidavit. The claimants have filed their counter affidavits. However, in view of the order the Court proposes to pass, the claimants would not be required to take a stand in the present case as they are only concerned with the compensation amount payable to them.

8. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the right to recover should also have been extended to the appellant vis-a-vis., the owner of the Bolero in question-respondent no.3. Once there is a finding of fact of contributory negligence coupled with the fact that the Bolero was standing on the road which is unauthorised, it would be deemed that there was fault on the part of the owner of the Bolero also. As the said Bolero was wrongly parked and there was no driver, obviously, it is the owner of the Bolero-respondent no.3, who has to take responsibility for any liability arising out of any untoward incident, including the accident in question.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The appellant-Insurance Company is given liberty to recover whatever the amount of the compensation, which has been fastened on it under the impugned order to be paid to the claimants from respondent no.3-owner of the Bolero.

10. The total liability amount fastened on the appellant be deposited/paid by the appellant-Insurance Company which shall be recovered from respondent no.3, if already not deposited, after adjusting whatever may have already been paid in the interregnum, within six weeks from today directly into the account of the claimants in terms of the impugned order of the High Court, failing which the rate of interest shall enhanced to 12% for the period of default.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.