Marine Insurance

Accused was attributed the simple role of Lalkara in the F.I.R. and he had reached the scene of occurrence at the completion of firing by co-accused who thereafter ran away

Accused, therefore, at such stage could not be said to have shared the intention of co-accused who had killed the deceased and injured the prosecution witnesses by firing

Allegation of having caused a stick injury on the head of a prosecution witness made subsequently against the accused could be determined only at the trial

Case of accused fell within the purview of further inquiry and the order of Shariat Court allowing bail to accused did not suffer from any illegality or legal infirmity

Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed accordingly.

Concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Courts below against the accused being fully borne out from the record were unexceptionable and were consequently maintained

Sentences awarded to accused, as a matter of abundant caution were ordered to run concurrently

Sentence of six months' R.I. awarded to accused in lieu of failure to pay compensation was also directed to be simple imprisonment as contemplated by S.544-A, Cr.P.C.

Marine Insurance The Insurance Law in England is divided into Marine and non-Marine Law. The Marine Law was the first to develop and its development continued for a long time since 1776 when Lord Mansfield became Lord Chief Justice. His judgments, principally in Marine cases, now form the backbone of English, American and Dominion Insurance Law. A large volume of case-law, English, American, and Dominion is available for ascertaining the principles of Marine Law, whereas the decisions of those Courts are not binding on the Courts in Pakistan, nevertheless, the English decisions, having judicial background and history, apart from their pursuasive value, have been invariably consulted and mostly followed in absence of any statutory provision, precedent or peculiar circumstances prevailing in Pakistan. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the principles of common law, so far they are not repugnant to our laws, can be applied in Pakistan, as customs, practice and usage are also included under Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1962), if the definition of law includes, as it does, practice, usage and custom having the force of law. The Marine Insurance Act contains definition, rules of interpretation and numerous provisions governing the rights of parties. This Act cannot, of course be applied to Pakistan but so far as we have to Interpret the policies, the meaning attached to the words and the expressions in the Act and in the English judgments, on Marine Insurance whether before or after 1906, as also the usages relating to interpretation of expressions employed in insurance policies, will be quite relevant. Thus so far as matters apart from the interpretation of English policies are concerned, English judgments and the Marine Act can be of help only in determining what is consistent with equity, justice and good conscience. We cannot, however, be affected by any technical provisions in the Marine Insurance Act and the decisions of the English Courts in respect of those provisions. In the Marine Insurance Act, the vital provisions in respect of missing ship is embodied in section 56. It reads : "where the ship concerned in the adventure is missing and after the lapse of reasonable time no news of her has been received, an actual total loss may be presumed. Since this is special rule of evidence laid down by the Act it cannot, as such, be applied to Pakistan but, nevertheless, if the principle is consistent with justice, equity and good conscience, a serious thought can be paid to it, of course, subject to the condition that it does not violate the rule laid down by the Evidence Act in force in Pakistan.

Marine Insurance-Insurance Company's liability for damage caused to cargo on board a ship-Clause in Insurance policy undertaking to help consignee to prosecute his cause against carrier in case of loss of, or damage to, consignment in transit on board the ship-Consignment damaged in transit and consignee approaching Insurance Company after his claim had been repudiated by carrier

Insurance Company, for long time giving evasive reply and finally repudiating its liability after period of limitation for filing suit against carrier expired-Assured, in circumstances, absolved of his duty to file suit against carrier or to make him a party to his suit against Insurance Company for realisation of claim on basis of Insurance Policy-Insurance Company alone, in circumstances, responsible for making good loss suffered by assured.

English law-[Simpson and Company v. Thomson, Burrel (1878) 3 A C 279 ; London Assurance Co. v. Sainsbury (1873) 3 Dougl. 245, 254=99 E R 636; MacGillivrayon Insurance Law ; Yates v. Whyte (1838) 4 Bing. N C 283 ; John Edwards and Company v. Motor Union Insurance Co. Ltd. (1922) 2 K B 249 ; Yorkshire Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Misbeth Shipping Co., Ltd. (1961) 2 A E L R 487 ; Randal v. Cockran 27 E R 916 and King v. Victoria Insurance Company Ltd., 1896 A C 250 ref.