Judgment :- 1. The petitioner states that he lost his daughter as a result of a "motor accident" on the 12th June 1956 and that he is entitled to compensation in respect of that accident. The 1st respondent is the State of Kerala, the 2nd, the State Insurance Officer, Trivandrum, and the 3rd, one Kuriakose whose lorry, TCK. 1238, is alleged to have been responsible for the accident. 2. The main prayer in the petition is that this court should issue: "a Writ of Mandamus or such other writ, order or direction to respondents 1 and 2 in order to compel them to dispose of the petitioner's application for compensation according to law and to grant his claim for the insurance amount due in respect of lorry T. C K. 1238, on account of the death of his daughter, T. K. Thankamma, in the accident caused by the said vehicle at Perumbavoor on 12th June 1956." 3. The insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks as far as this case is concerned is governed by Chapter VII of the T-C Motor vehicles Act, 1125 (Act X of 1125), and the most important provisions therein regarding; a third party's rights against the insurer are those contained in S.91 which corresponds to S.96 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. What those provisions have done is only to impose upon the insurer the duty of satisfying the judgments against his assured in respect of third party claims notwithstanding that he may be entitled to avoid or cancel the policy or may in fact have already done so. (Barwell's Law of Insurance in British India, page 493) 4. I entertain no doubt that the petitioner's rights, if any, have to be worked out by a regular suit in the appropriate court and not by a petition like this under Art.226 of the Constitution. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be under some misapprehension regarding sub-section (4) of S.90: "Notwithstanding anything elsewhere contained in any law, a person issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons". The exact scope and meaning of this section will be clear from the following commentary on S.36 (4) of the (English) Road Traffic Act, 1930, in MACGILLIVRAY on Insurance Law, Fourth Edition, Para.1840: "S. 36 (4) provides that, notwithstanding anything in any enactment, a person who issues a policy of insurance under that section is liable to indemnify the persons or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of those persons or classes of persons. This subsection is intended to meet the difficulty which was first considered in the case of Williams v. The Baltic (1924) 2 K. B. 282) and to confirm the effect of that decision, in respect of the clause which is normally inserted in motor vehicles policies extending the indemnity to persons other than the insured driving the vehicle with his consent." 6. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.