Law:

Section:

Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 96 (2)-Grounds which Insurance Company may take in suit for compensation by third party-Confined to provisions of S. 96 (2)-Not permissible to Insurance Company to resist suit by third party on any other ground. Gul Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th December 1969. ORDER MUHAMMAD YUQAB ALI, J.-A decree for payment of Rs. 25,960 has been passed on appeal by the High Court in favour of the heirs of one Khushi Muhammad, respondent herein, who while driving a tractor was killed in a collusion with the bus owned by the respondent No. 5 and driven by the respondent No. 6. Out of the decretal amount Rs. 20,000 is to be paid by the petitioner with whom the bus was insured against third party risk and the balance is to be paid by the respondents and 6. The suit was filed by the respondents 1 to 4 against respon­dents 5 and 6 and a notice given to the petitioner as required by section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In their written statement the petitioner raised numerous objections, e. g. that the suit was barred by time and that the accident had taken place due to negligence on the part of respondent No. 6. The grounds which an insurance company may take in a suit for compensation by the third party being confined to subsection (2) of section 96, the trial Court did not frame any issues to cover, these grounds. In their, defence respondents 5 and 6, however, raised a number of grounds including the plea that the accident in which Khushi Muhammad died, did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent No. 6. The maintainability of the suit and the quantum of damages were also contested. The trial Judge found that the accident was not caused as a result of rash-and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No. 6 and dismissed the suit on this ground. On an appeal by respondents 1 to 4 the High Court, however, came to a contrary conclusion and as mentioned above decreed the suit in the sum of Rs. 25,920. The respondents 5 and 6 have not chosen to contend against the decree passed against…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492