P L D 1975 Karachi 4 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD HALEEM. J.‑In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 16th March 1974 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and Claims Tribunal, Karachi, holding that the petitioner is liable to pay compensation to an accident victim in accordance with the provisions of section 67 the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance XIX of 1965 as amended by the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Ordinance, 1970, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance.

2. The petitioner is a corporate body, within the meaning of section 70 of the Ordinance, established for the purpose of operating Road Transport Services in the Province of Sind. On 12th December 1972, one of its passenger bus, No. KAZ 8161, in which Sher Muhammad, aged 12 or 13 years, was travelling met with an accidental death. His parents, respondents I and 2, preferred a claim for the payment of Rs. 8,000 under section 67(1)(a) of the Ordinance before the Additional Deputy Commissioner and Claims Tribunal, Karachi. The petitioner objected to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain such an application as it was not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal framed a preliminary issue with regard to its jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim and held against the petitioner.

3. The precise objection taken was that not being a permit‑holder within the meaning of section 67(1) of the Ordinance, the petitioner was not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal held that by section 71, the petitioner was exempted from payment of fee and permit issued by the Provincial or Regional Transport Authority, nonetheless, "the statute in consonance with section 70 setting up the S. R. T. C. by Government should obviously be treated as the permit envisaged in section 67(1)". Again, while dealing with the contention of the petitioner that not being a permit holder, the Legislature has not intended to make the S. R. T. C. liable, the Tribunal held :‑ "I find no force in this argument, for it can only imply that the Legislature has given a licence to the S. R. T. C. to kill or maim its passengers without let or hindrance and such licence the S. R. T. C. obviously has not." Lastly, it held that if there was a doubt compensation will still have to be paid by the actual owner.

4. The above reasons given by the Tribunal have no bearing to the true interpretation of the words "permit holder" used in section 67(1) of the Ordinance, which reads :‑ ‑_ "

67. Compensation for death of, or injury to, a passenger ‑(1) In case of death of, or injury to, a passenger in the stage‑carriage or a contract‑carriage, other than a motor‑cab, arising out of use of such carriage, there shall be paid by the permit holder of such carriage as compensation‑ (a) in case of death of a passenger, a sum of rupees eight thousand to the legal representatives of the passenger ; (b) in case of an injury to a passenger, the amount specified in the Thirteenth Schedule, to the passenger."

5. Now, the word `permit' has been defined in section 2(25) of the Ordinance as under :‑ "(25) `permit' means the document issued by the Provincial Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority authorising the use of a transport vehicle as a contract‑carriage or stage‑carriage, or authorising the owner as a private carrier or public carrier to use such vehicle." Its meaning, therefore, is obvious and admits of no doubt. It is really an authorisation issued for using a transport vehicle as a contract‑carriage or stage‑carriage. Section 44 prohibits the use of a transport vehicle Without such permit. There is no doubt that it is couched in general terms but section 71 of the Ordinance excludes the jurisdiction of the authority exercised by the Provincial or Regional Transport Authority, in the case of a corporation, which is authorised to operate motor transport on any route it may think fit. The function of granting permits is given to either Provincial Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority and for obtaining a permit for operating a vehicle as a stage‑carriage, an application has to be filed. Section 49 of the Ordinance prescribes the procedure for the grant o applications for stage‑carriage permits. Section 50 lays down the conditions for the grant of such carriage permit. This section is pertinent and is. therefore, reproduced :‑ "

50. Conditions for grant of stage‑carriage permits.‑(1) A condition shall be inserted in every stage carriage permit that in case of death of or injury to, a passenger in the vehicle to which the permit relates arising out of the use of the vehicle, there shall be paid by the permit :holder as compensation‑ (a) in case of death of a passenger, a sum of rupees eight thousand to the legal representatives of the deceased passenger ; and (b) in case of any injury to a passenger, the amount specified in the Thirteenth Schedule, to the injured passenger." Lastly, where a vehicle is used without a permit, its contravention is punishable under section 106 and the vehicle is liable to be detained under section 115 of the Ordinance. In the context of the above provisions and the fact that the Corporation is not subject to the authority of the Provincial or the Regional Transport Authority, in the matter of the issue of a permit for operating the vehicle as the stage carriage, the words "permit holder" have, therefore, a technical meaning. It only applies to a person, to whom a permit has been issued and not to the Corporation, which can operate buses without any permit and on any route, the Government may direct within the meaning of section 45(3) or section 70 of the Ordinance. While, therefore, .construing the words "permit holder" it cannot by intendment be also held to apply to a Corporation which is established under section 70 of the Ordinance. The liability is, therefore, limited to Vie case of a permit holder, in whose permit a condition is inserted by virtue of section 50 of the Ordinance. It is this condition which is statutorily enforced against him. The tribunal on a wholly erroneous assumption held the establishment of the S. R. T. C. under section 70 of the Ordinance as meaning a permit holder within the meaning of section 67(l) of the Ordinance. In this view of the matter, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General also conceded that he would not support the order. Accordingly, the order impugned is liable to be declared as without lawful authority and of no effect, and we so order. The petition is allowed but with no order as to costs. K. B. A. Petition accepted.