Law: Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855)

Section: 1

Law: Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939)

Section: 96(2),96

  Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855)----S. 1 and Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S.96(2)-Fatal accident-Insurance against third party risk-Defences other than those mentioned in S. 96, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 not available - Accident occurring during subsistence of policy-Mere contention that policy along with vehicle had not been transferred to transferee by original owner of vehicle and policy holder-Not valid defence in respect of third party insurance-Insurer bound to pay damages under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 regardless of fact whether policy stood in name of original policy-holder or transferee.   Date of hearing: 29th September 1965.   JUDGMENT   KHAMISANI, J.----This is a Letters Patent Appeal filed against the Judgment and decree passed by our learned brother Mr. Justice Wahiduddin Ahmad on the 6th of July 1960, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs against defendants No. 2 appellants in the sum of Rs. 14,280 with proportionate costs.   The relevant facts on which this appeal is founded are that on the 20th of April 1954,at about 6 a.m., while the deceased was going to his office at Manora in the Himalya Naval Headquarters on his motor-cycle, bus No. K A P 548 knocked him down and brought about his death. The deceased at the time of the incident was a young man of thirty-five years and was employed in the Pakistan Navy drawing a, salary of Rs. 220 per month in the grade of Chief Ordnance Artificer. The plaintiffs, who are the wife and the minor children of the deceased, filed a suit under the Fatal Accidents Act for a sum of Rs. 50,000. This suit was filed against the owner of the bus defendant No. 1 only. During the pendency of the suit Messrs Pak Insurance Co. Ltd. defendant No. 2 were impleaded under the order of this Court dated the 20th of January 1958.   Defendant No. 2 took up the plea that bus No. K A P 548 was insured with them byone Abdul Hai Khan who had without their knowledge transferred the bus and in collusion with their agents fraudulently transferred the insurance policy to defendant No. 1. Their case before the Court was that they were not liable to pay any damages to the plaintiffs in respect of the…