Law: Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855)

Section: 1

Law: Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939)

Section: 95(2),95(4),96(2),96(3)

  Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1885)----S. 1-Damages-Injuries sustained on account of rash and negligent driving Assessment of damages by trial Judge-Not to be lightly inter fered with-Order of trial Judge challenged not as regards quantum but as regards classification of damages assessed-Criticism, held, not of any substance.   Bisseswar Lal v. Rup Kishore 62 I C 72 ; Skipp v. Kelly A I R 1920 P C 27 and Kameswara Rao's "Law of Damages & Compensation", 3rd Ed., p. 1104 ref.   Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939)----Ss. 95(2), (4) & 96 (2) read with S. 96(3)-Insurer neither can insure vehicle for amount lesser than fixed under S. 95(2) nor reduce his liability by inserting any condition in certificate, issued under S. 95 (4), restricting insurance to amount lower than that statutorily fixed Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1885), S. 1.   B.I.G. Insurance Co. v. Itbar Singh A I R 1939 S C 1331 and Nusrat Ali v. U. K. Construction Co. P L D 1963 Kar. 841 ref.   Dates of hearing : 15th and 19th October 1965.   JUDGMENT   QADEERUDDIN AHMAD, J.----This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of our learned brother, A. S. Faruqui, J., dated the 27th of May, 1960. This appeal was heard previously by another Bench of this Court, and judgment was reserved on the 6th of May 1964, but later on, a notice was issued to the advocates of the parties as well as to the Asian Mutual Insurance Company Limited, vide the order of this Court dated the 9th of May 1964, because the decree under appeal is for Rs. 22,027.00 with proportionate costs against the defendants; but during the arguments counsel for the parties gave the Court to understand that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 2,000.00 only in terms of the insurance policy, Exh. 23. We have heard counsel for the parties over again, but have heard counsel for the Insurance Company on the limited question of the extent of the liability of the Insurance Company.   The facts which form the background of this appeal, briefly, are that respondent No.1 Trevor A. Robertson filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 50,000.00 as damages as against the…