' Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J-- This High Court Appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree of a learned Single Judge of this High Court, dated 11th April, 1977 whereby a joint and separate decree for Rs, 1,00,000 with costs of the suit was passed against the respondents Nos.2 and 3 and a joint and separate decree with respondent No,2 was passed against the present appellant to the extent of Rs, 20,000 with proportionate cost. The facts in this case are not much complicated.
2. It is an admitted position that on 19th February, 1969 an accident took place and bus No, KAT 7037 owned by respondent No,3 being driven by respondent No,2 hit R.P.Hamza, deceased, husband of respondent No,1, as a result of which Hamza died in the hospital. The deceased was 45 years of age at that time and was employed as a Junior Assistant Mechanical Engineer with K.P.T. And drawing a salary of Rs,858 per month. He had left three minor sons and three minor daughters alongwith respondent widow. He was a man of sober habits. The respondent No,1 brought a suit for compensation and she claimed a sum of Rs, 1,00,000 with interest at 8%.
3. The bus owner and driver did not contest the proceedings and the respondent/plaintiff proved her case against them by an affidavit which was believed by the Hon'ble Judge of this High Court.
The notice of the suit had been given to the present appellant under section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The appellants wanted to contest the suit on merits but they were not allowed to do so. The appellants had contended thereafter before the Hon'ble Judge that they were not responsible to pay any sum because the policy of insurance they had issued was in the name of Habib Ahmed and it did not cover M/S. United Bus Service who had taken over the said bus from Habib Ahmed and that the insurance policy had not been transferred from Habib Ahmed to United Bus Service. They contended that since the United Bus Service was not covered by the insurance policy therefore, they were not responsible for the damages.
4. The Hon'ble Judge agreed with their contentions that the appellants were not responsible for any liability of respondent No,3 namely United Bus Service as the policy did not cover them. However, he upheld the contention of respondent No,1 that the respondent No,2 Abdul Ghafoor who was the driver of the bus at the relevant time was covered by the insurance policy and, therefore, in accordance with section 95(5) the appellants were liable to indemnify the driver and hence their liability extended to the loss suffered by the respondent No,1.
5. The Hon'ble Judge has mainly relied upon the insurance policy as Exh. 5/1 which has commenced with the following statement: "Whereas the insured by the proposal and declaration dated as stated in the schedule which shall be the basis of this contract and is deemed to be incorporated herein has applied to the company for the insurance herein contained and has paid the premium as consideration for such insurance in respect of events occurring during the period of insurance."
' The next item of the insurance policy considered was paragraph No,3 which provided as under:- "In terms and subject to the limitations of this policy the Company will indemnify any Driver who is driving the Motor Vehicle as declared by the proposer or any person authorised by him on his behalf, provided that such Driver:
(a) is not entitled to indemnity under any other policy.
(b) shall as though he was the insured observe, fulfil and be subject to the terms, conditions and exceptions of this policy in so far as they apply.
' The third item of the policy relied upon by the Hon'ble Judge was the schedule attached to the said insurance policy where in respect of limitation as to use the following were specified: "Driver, Conductor and 37 passengers risk is covered: ' Provided the person driving holds a valid licence to drive the Motor Vehicle."
6. The Hon'ble Judge construed the item in the schedule with paragraph No,3 of the main policy and was of the view that since the proposer had declared any driver and conductor as the person whose risk is covered without specifying any name therefore, the policy covered the risk in respect of any driver who was driving the said vehicle irrespective of the fact whether he was an employee of the insured person or not. The Hon'ble Judge held as under:-- "By virtue of section 95 the Driver, Conductor and Passengers whoever they may at the material time as a class or person were clearly insured unconditionally in the policy. It will not be proper to add the condition that only a driver in the employment of the main insured person was intended to be covered by the insurance as no such qualification has been imposed in the terms of the policy.
The intention was, therefore, clearly to extend insurance cover to any driver irrespective of the fact whether he was acting in employment of the owner or otherwise."
7. Mr. Munir-ur-Rehman, the learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that since the Policy had covered a particular insured namely Habib Ahmed who was not a party in the suit therefore, it meant to cover only driver employed by Habib Ahmed and no one else and in no case any one employed by respondent No,3. We cannot agree with the view of the learned counsel in view of the fact that the schedule contains only the general description of driver without specifying any further particulars in respect of name or other description which can specify a particular driver. In fact if the insurance cover was to be restricted to the drivers employed by the insured only then the policy could have clearly specified in its schedule that only driver and conductor employed by the insured were covered in risk and no other person. But the same was not done and a mere word "driver" was written in the schedule. This clearly shows that the intention was to cover any driver of the particular vehicle if he was driving the same within specified time covered by the policy. It has not been contended before us that the period of policy had expired nor there was any defence taken that the driver did not have the licence.
' No other point has been urged before us in respect of compensation awarded which is only Rs, 20,000 with costs which has covered by the insurance policy though the original decree against the driver and the bus owner was for Rs, 1,00,000.
8. In fairness to Mr. Munir we may point out that the view adopted by the Hon'ble Single Judge in this case has been fully approved by a Full Bench of this Court reported in P l 01984 Kar. 38 (60) in the following words:-- "It may be mentioned that Zafar Hussain Mirza, J. In the above case of Mst. Ayeshabi was dealing with an insurance certificate which was couched in identical terms as the insurance certificate in the instant case, in which the present reference has been made. It may be advantageous to reproduce para. 5 of the Insurance Certificate in question, which reads as follows:- "Para. 5.-- Person or classes of persons entitled to drive- Any persons provided the person driving holds a valid licence to drive the vehicle."
' In the abovequoted insurance certificate specified person, is any person provided the person driving holds a valid driving licence. The wordings of the above certificate are different from the clauses, which were the subject-matter of interpretation by Goddard, J (as he then was) in the above-cited and discussed case of Tattersall v. Drysdale and before the Supreme Court of India in the case of New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani and others inasmuch as in the said cases the cover was extended to any person driving on the assured's order or with his permission, whereas in the instant case there is no such requirement. It may be observed that the abovequoted para. 5 of the insurance certificate is susceptible to two interpretations namely, any persons mean the person or persons in employment contemplation of the insured but liberal construction of the above para. Will cover any person holding a valid driving licence. Zafar Hussain Mirza, J. Preferred the latter interpretation and pointed out that the driver, conddctor and passengers whoever they may be at the material time is a class of persons insured and that it was not warranted to add a condition that only a driver in the employment of the main insured person was intended to be covered by the insurance policy. However, I may point out that if the above insurance certificate would have been couched differently, for example providing against above para. 5 'Owner of any person driving with his permission or order having a valid driving licence', in that event, it would not have been possible to take the above view, which found favour with Zafar Hussain Mirza, J. I am inclined to subscribe to the above view found favour with Zaffar Hussain Mirza, J. As it is a beneficial view and also seems to be in consonance with the spirit of the provisions of the Act highlighted hereinabove in para. 6."
9. We respectfully agree with the view adopted by the Full Bench and we are of the view that the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in this case was amply justified by the words of the schedule of the insurance policy and the law pertaining to the same. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. We are however, not ready to award cost of this appeal against the appellant in view of the fact that the respondent No,1 has remained absent. The office will send an intimation of result of this appeal to respondent No,1. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.