Summary: PLJ 1992 SC (AJK) 49 Compensation – Road Accident (Death and Injuries): The case involved the payment of compensation for the death of 5 persons and injuries to 4 others in a road accident. The question was whether the appellant (Azad Kashmir Transporters Mutual Assistance Cooperative Society) was liable to pay compensation. Liability of the Bus Owner (Respondent No. 5): The liability of Respondent No. 5, the owner of the bus, was questioned. He could only be held guilty of contravention of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance if he had allowed an unlicensed person to drive the bus. However, the driver engaged by Respondent No. 5 was experienced and properly licensed. Certificate Issued by the Appellant: The certificate issued by the appellant (Azad Kashmir Transporters Mutual Assistance Cooperative Society) was to be treated as interchangeable with a bank guarantee for all practical purposes. However, it did not extend to cases where there was a violation of the motor vehicle laws by the permit holder. Held: No case was made out before the High Court because the impugned order was neither without lawful authority nor without legal effect. As such, the appeal was dismissed. [Pp. 51-52] A, B. -----Background: A road accident resulted in the death of five persons and injuries to four others. The Claims Tribunal ordered a Transporters Mutual Assistance Co-operative Society ("the Society") to pay Rs. 88,000 in compensation. The vehicle involved, a bus, was owned by the permit holder, who had hired a licensed and experienced driver. However, at the time of the accident, an unauthorized, unlicensed person had taken over driving. The Society challenged its liability for compensation, arguing that the bus owner's failure to prevent the unlicensed person from driving constituted a violation of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1971, thereby absolving the Society from liability. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Society was liable to pay compensation despite the fact that the accident involved an unlicensed driver who was not authorized by the bus owner. -----2- Whether the certificate issued by the Society exempted it from liability where the motor vehicle laws were violated by unauthorized persons driving the vehicle. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Liability of the Society: The court held that the Society was liable for the compensation as the bus owner had taken reasonable precautions by hiring a licensed driver. The fact that an unlicensed driver took over without the owner's knowledge did not exempt the Society from its obligations under the certificate. --Owner's Compliance: The court reasoned that the bus owner had not violated Section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, which prohibits an owner from allowing an unlicensed person to drive. Since the owner had employed a licensed driver who was initially driving the bus, the owner was not liable for the subsequent actions of the unauthorized driver. --Interpretation of the Certificate: The certificate issued by the Society functioned as a guarantee to cover the liability of the permit holder for compensation. It did not cover cases where the permit holder directly violated the law, but in this case, since the owner had not committed any violation, the Society remained liable for the compensation. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions that the Society was liable to pay compensation as ordered by the Claims Tribunal. -----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1966 Supreme Court 178

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.