The court held that the insurer was liable to indemnify the owner of the lorry for the accident despite the fact that the ownership of the lorry had been transferred after the policy was issued, as the insurer had failed to produce the necessary documents to prove that the transfer was not assented to.

( 1 ) ONE Biswanath Banerjee met path his death In a fatal accident on the Jessore Road due to a collusion between a passenger bus and a motor lorry carrying goods, the two coming from opposite directions. Biswanath was travelling in the bus. The plaintiffs respondents are the widow, a minor daughter, and his dependent parents. The plaintis claimed under the Fatal Accidents Act (XII of 1855) compensation of Rs. 30,000/ -. Originally the suit was brought against four persons who were described as the owners and the drivers of the bus and the lorry' in question as also "habib Bank Limited", described as the firm with which the lorry had been insured. Defence was filed on behalf of defendant No. 1, the owner of the bus. No appearance was entered on behalf of the two drivers (defendants Nos. 2 and 4) as also defendant No. 3 Amiruddin who was described in the plaint originally as the owner of the lorry.

( 2 ) WRITTEN statement was filed on behalf of Habib Insurance Company Limited, describing itself as defendant No. 5, though the party named in the plaint was "habib Bank Limited". The description of this defendant was subsequently corrected in the plaint. Various defences were raised by the owner of the bus and Habib Insurance Company Limited. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiffs' claim against ail the deiendants, on contest against two and 'ex parte' against the remaining three. Habib Insurance Company Limited had stated in their defence that the person recorded in their books as the owner of the lorry was one Abdul Karim and not Amirucidin. Steps were taken thereafter by the plaintiffs to add the said Abdul Karim as defendant No. 6. This added defendant did not enter appearance and the suit was dismissed as against him on the ground that he had been brought on the record alter the period of limitation.

( 3 ) TWO appeals have been preferred to this Court. First Appeal No. 76 of 1951 is by Bir Singh, deiendant No. 1, the owner of the bus. First appeal No. 113 of 1851 has been filed by defendant No. 5, Habib Insurance Company Limited, with which concern the lorry had been insured.

( 4 ) THE owner of the bus has raised grounds relating to the quantum of the compensation and has also prayed for apportionment of the amount assessed as damages as between the persons connected with the bus and with the lorry.

( 5 ) IN the appeal filed on behalf of Habib Insurance Company Limited, the only point urged is that under the law the Company is not liable to meet the claims for this accident. The quantum of compensation payable could not and has not been raised by this appellant.

( 6 ) WE shall first take up the appeal by Bir Singh, the owner of the bus.

( 7 ) THE plaintiffs had made the owner and the driver of the bus as parties defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The bus in question was alleged to have been insured with an insurance company which was not impleaded as it was stated that the notice which was required to be served under the Insurance Act had not been served. It is not necessary for our present purpose to consider the question whether the insurer of the bus is or is not liable. It was further alleged that after the accident both the drivers, viz. , defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were sent up for trial on a charge of rash and negligent driving. The driver of the bus was acquitted by the Magistrate in the view that no case of rash and negligent driving had been proved against him.

( 8 ) AS regards the quantum of the compensation and the apportionment as amongst the different defendants the question was considered under one issue in a general form as to whether the defendants were liable to pay any compensation, and if so, to what extent. It will be necessary for us to consider the prayer of apportionment as also the quantum of compensation as against the different. defendants.

( 9 ) THAT the deceased Biswanath was a passenger in the bus has not been questioned before us. That he died as a result of the acc