IOU’??? {SW %M%W&¥’M.K%’ flfiwfl’ agaw-WMjwMmmmmamm–mamm-mwum us” axnaxm-Mammm ‘nIwn’\avz..Ina-ur- M-axmnunnn nawn-a.-uuaw WW memmmuma-«um -W-awn-wwwmn
:1:
This M.F.A. coming cm hazing aha
Court delivered the i’o1;mwi.ng:~– ”
5UDGM§fl:”~. fl
The cmly questing thaitw ret;;2.iia§§si’ if.§V 5;
ccnsidezced in i;tLia””‘-.:§:”aa.sa thé
justification c>.f”~.1f._he in ‘i'”a’s’1E.Vening tha
liability on than i§1sur’a–nui?:aé
2._ laarnad Counsel
far :::c:-mpany is that the
indicates that the
injvimuaind a private car by paying
339650)” §.r.’.>’:~ driver and therefsre the
V-‘i£i~ii>fina; not have human-4} the Insurance
‘= :camp§ng* with liability an the race af the
“.”§#id§t.{:j;V..i:’ ‘mt’ tha wry claimant himself. Ir:
at the: above suhmissian, the learned
ii ‘ii’Gé9u£ise1 referreci tn the evidence on restart: and
iiifiiantezzded that the tribunal was in error in
ignoring the d$t’:i:s:$.on cited before it. In this
connection, my attantian was drawn tn: the
aacfmim reported in 11.51 280% EAR 4112.
654%
Themraru, tzna learned Counsel argued anti
fir
;;€}U%E”i {W Qnnfiéfiswé MUMW %;.X«’;&.jW«”i&€WmiMm% mmrm Lmum W?” fififlmfla/RNA Hiram vuuum ur mammmwmm WWW mwum W3″ g’mmMw§mawm.m WWW mwwmzm
I’n
theta is no endoraement in the policy fin cover
the risk as gratuitaus passenger txa§§lii¢§fi§y;
private car.
5. The tribunal wag ;h§;§£fira $@%§§§§f ;n
ignaring the deci5i§fi,_cife@ Vpé%$i§~mi£ Vafid
putting the liapility fih tag Ifisuiéngfi campagy.
The View takefi” fly ighg ifrififiual therefore is
contrary this Cauxrt in
the casétsi §§$””‘hrell as the above
mentioned dacisignL ;V E
6. In £ha’r&sfil§;tth§¥§fi§éfil is allawad and
tha judgmant df_th&xE§i$un§; is modified inanfar
a5_tha
‘ébiiity is.fién:érnad. The liability put
ofi*:Hé*Ifi£nfan:§ company is set aaida amd the
3 3:1.
g.v1iabii£t?_ dfi§i§u$iy’ fall? on tha insurad. any
;ifi¢nnt in fifipfiéit shall ha refunded tn the
H”£§fiu:fiqca cam§any.
Sdi-‘F
Judge