Find a Lawyer

Civil Revisions Nos. 252 and 253 of 1986, heard on 8th December 1986.

‑‑‑S. 1‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0. VIII, R. 2‑‑Death of two persons by one vehicle on same day‑‑Plea of defendant that both dead persons were involved in same accident neither pleaded in written statement nor proved by evidence‑‑Effect‑‑Where evidence recorded in both suits did not disclose that death of two persons was the ‑result of a single incident, Trial Court, held, rightly decreed the suits separately against the defendants in each suit for separate amounts.

‑‑‑S.1‑‑Motor Vehicles Act (I of 1939), S.95(2)(a)‑‑Statutory liability of Insurance Company for accident‑‑Extent of‑‑Where same vehicle was involved in more than one fatal accident on one date, liability thereof, in respect of each one of such incidents, held, would be separate to the extent of Rupees twenty thousand.

‑‑‑S.1‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5.115‑‑Decretal amount in excess of liability of Insurance Company‑‑Recovery of‑‑Decretal amount in excess of liability of Insurance Company, held, was to be recovered from defendants other than the Insurance Company‑‑Decree against other defendants having been upheld in revisional jurisdiction, no clarification was needed in respect of their liability.

Riazul Hassan for Applicant.

Hussain for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 8th December, 1986

By this order I propose to dispose of Revision Applications Nos. 252 and 253 of 1986 finally as in both the Revision Applications a common question of law has arisen. Today only Miscellaneous applications in the above revision applications are fixed for hearing but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard the arguments on the main case.

The respondent No.1 in the above revision instituted two separate suits under Fatal Accidents Act for recovery of compensation against the applicant and two other defendants who are respondents 2 and 3 in these petitions. The trial Court decreed the suits of respondent No.l in the sum of Rs.50,000 each against all the defendants. The petitioner challenged the decrees in both the suits before the first appellate Court but without any success and has now challenged these decrees in the above revision.

Mr. Riazul Hassan, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended before me that the liability of the Insurance Company in both the cases is limited to only Rs. 20, 000 in view of section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such the decrees passed in the above suits against all the defendants jointly and severally in the sum of Rs.50,000 is in excess of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondent No.l in the above revisions on the other hand contended that the liability of the Insurance Company was not limited to Rs.20,000 only as there is nothing on record to show that the Insurance Policy issued by the applicant limited the liability of insured to only Rs.2b,000. It is common case of the parties that the vehicle involved in the case was a goods carrying vehicle. It is also an admitted position that the incident took place on 12th November, 1971 in which two persons who were riding on separate bicycles were killed on Circular Road, near National Stadium. Mr. Riazul Hassan, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the liability of Insurance Company in both the cases is limited to Rs.20,000 as both the persons died in the same accident. I have gone through the plaints in the two suits as well as the evidence and judgments of the two Courts below and after reading the same I am satisfied that the pleadings and evidence did not show that the two persons who were riding on separate bicycles died in one and the same accident. Mere fact that the incident had taken place at about the same time on the same road did not necessarily mean that the incident was also one, If the stand of the applicant was that all those persons who died were involved in the same accident, it was for them to have pleaded and A proved the same. Since the evidence recorded in two suits did not disclose that the death of all the persons involved in the accident was the result of a single incident the trial Court rightly decreed the suit, separately against the defendants in each suit for separate amounts. However, after reading the provisions of section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act it is quite clear that the statutory liability of Insurance) Company for each accident is limited to Rs.20,000 only. If the same vehicle is involved in more than one fatal accident on one date, then the liability in respect of each one of such incidents will be separately to the extent of Rs.20,000. I, therefore, hold that the liability of applicant in each one of the above suits was limited to Rs.20,000 only, in view of section 95 of Motor Vehicles Act. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.l in the above petitions that the liability of the applicant was unlimited cannot be accepted in the absence of proof of such liability on the part of the applicant. I accordingly modify the judgments and decrees in the above cases to the extent that out of the decretal amount in the above suit only a sum of Rs.20,000 in each case will be recoverable from the applicant as their statutory B liability under section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, as this statutory liability was not discharged by the applicant, immediately on service of notice under section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, they will also be liable to pay interest at the rate 12% per annum on the sum of Rs.20,000 in each case from the date of decree till the amount is paid to the decree‑holders. I am informed by the learned counsel for the, parties that under an attachment order issued by the trial Court a sum of Rs.1,00,000 belonging to the applicant is lying attached with the State Bank of Pakistan. The executing Court may call for the amount of Rs.20,000 in each case plus the interest calculated at the above rate from the attached amount and balance amount may be released from attachment.

Learned counsel for respondent No.l in both the cases requested that it may be clarified that the remaining decretal amount could be recovered from the other defendants in the suit. No such clarification is needed in the cases as the decree against other defendants in the suits are upheld. There will be no order as to costs.

A . A . / E‑1 / K Revision partly allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.