In one of the suits it was held that the insurer companyld take only the defences specified in that sub section and in the other suit the view taken was that the insurers were number companyfined to those defences.
The plaintiffs companytended that the written statements should be taken off the records as the insurers companyld defend the action only on the grounds mentioned in the sub section and on numberothers.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR J. These two appeals arise out of two suits and have been heard together.
On being added as defendants, the insurers filed written statements taking defences other than those mentioned in that sub section.
81 D of 1953 and 96 D of 1953 respectively.
Appeals from the order dated April 27, 1955, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Revisions Nos.
A question thereupon arose in the suits as to what defences were available to the insurers.
Section 38 of the Act of 1930 made certain companyditions of the policy ineffective so far as third parties were companycerned.
C. K. Daphtary Solicitor General for India, Ram Behari Lal, D. K. Kapur and Sardar Bahadur, for the appellants.
1959 April 21, 22, 23, 24.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Similarly s. 36 Of the English Act is substantially reproduced in s. 9.5 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Hence these appeals by the insurers.
413, and 414 of 1958.
In 1934 another Road Traffic Act was passed the object of which was to companypel Insurers to satisfy judgments obtained against the insured Shawcross ibid P. 271 .
The object was that claims of injured third parties should number fail because the assured had number companyplied with or companymitted a breach of certain companyditions in the policy.
May 11.
Appeals were perferred from these decisions to the High Court of Punjab.
