1. ' One Farooq Silk Factory imported a consignment of 56 Cartons of Polyester Texrured Yarn from Kobe Japan for delivery at Karachi. The consignment was insured with the applicant under a Marine Insurance policy. It is alleged that one Carton was short delivered. The consignees made a claim with the respondent for a sum of Rs.3,552.42 but as it was not settled they lodged a claim with the applicant who settled the same and letter of subrogation was obtained signed by one Pyar 'Ali Noor Mohomed. It may be stated that Payar Ali Noor Mohomed was the clearing agent appointed by the consignees and for that purpose the bill of lading had been endorsed in his favour. The applicant as subrogatu of the consignee filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,552.42. It may also be mentioned that this claim was made by the consignee which was settled by the applicant.
2. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the letter of subrogation was not signed by the consignee and it was not proved that Pyarali Noor Muhammad was authorised by the consignee to settle the claim and execute a letter of subrogation. The main emphasis of the learned Appellate Court was that letter of subrogation has not been signed by the insured themselves.
3. ' From a perusal of the record and the evidence produced before the learned trial Court it is clear that one Akhtar All Baig was examined by the applicant who stated that when the claim was lodged by the clearing agent of the consignees it was settled, payment was made and letter of subrogation was obtained. In cross-examination this statement has not been challenged at all. No evidence in rebuttal has been produced by the respondent. In view of this unrebutted evidence it is clear that the applicant had settled the claim of the consignee by making payment and letter of subrogation was executed by one Payarali Noor Muhammad stated to be the clearing agent appointed by the consignee who had lodged the claim. It is not the case of the respondent that upto this date the consigees have made any separate claim against the respondent in respect of the said consignment. The entire controversy boils down to whether the applicant has settled consignee's claim, made payment to them and has subrogated to their right. The applicant who has made the payment accepted that Payar Ali Noor Muhammad is an agent of the consignee to whom payment was made and letter of subrogation was executed by him. No objection seems to have been raised to the letter of subrogation which was exhibited by the Court. The respondent therefore, at this late stage cannot raise the objection that the letter of subrogation has not been proved or duly executed. The question whether payment to the consignee has been made is fully established. In this regard Akhtar Ali Baig has made categorical statement and nothing contrary has been shown to disbelieve him. Where under a' marine policy the insurer satisfies the claim of the insured and settles his claim by payment, the insurer is subrogated to the rights of the , insured and has a right to sue in its own name. For the valid subrogation execution of letter of subrogation is not necessary. It is enough if the insured's claim has been paid by the insurer. In such an event the subrogation is by operation of law. Reference can be made to PLD 1963 SC 663. As payment to the insurer has been established even for argument sake if the letter of subrogation is excluded from consideration the applicant stands subrogated to the right of the insured and can file suit in its name. The suit is, therefore, maintainable. No other point was urged by the parties. The judgment and. Decree passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The suit is decreed with costs.