1995SCMR446 (PLP)
PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through its General Manager‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JAVED IQBAL ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | 1995SCMR446 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through its General Manager‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JAVED IQBAL ‑‑‑ Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR446 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR446 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR446 (PLP) (PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through its General Manager‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JAVED IQBAL ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Fazal‑i‑Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18Th January, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 13‑7‑1992 passed in R.S.A. No. 312 of 1967). Damages‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Amputation of plaintiff's leg due to accident caused by Railway Engine‑‑‑Liability for damages‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit for recovery of damages was decreed by Trial Court but dismissed by First Appellate Court‑‑‑High Court, however, restored Trial Court's judgment and decree and awarded damages with interest‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Facts and circumstances of the case indicated that no legal questions of general importance had arisen in the case‑‑‑Plaintiff admittedly had suffered injury on Railway track, which was unfenced‑‑‑Trial Court as also High Court had found that incident in question had occurred due to negligence' of Railway employees‑‑‑Plaintiff although had not claimed any interest, yet Court in the interest of justice was competent to grant interest to plaintiff as ancillary relief‑‑‑Amount of damages granted by Courts below did not appear to have been paid to plaintiff‑‑‑No interference with the judgment and decree of High Court was warranted in circumstances‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court whereby the decree passed in favour of the respondent by the learned trial Court was restored and the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,460 with interest.
2. On 19‑12‑1960 when the respondent/plaintiff was a child of about six years and while playing with playmates on the Railway line he was struck by the Railway engine causing injury to him. As a result of the injury his leg had to be amputated. He filed a suit for recovery of Rs.25,000 as damages. The learned trial Court decreed the suit for Rs.10,460 by judgment dated 23‑12‑1964. However, in appeal the learned Additional District Judge reversed the judgment and dismissed the suit. The respondent filed regular second appeal before the High Court and by the impugned judgment decree as aforesaid was passed against the petitioner.
3. This meagre claim in which only a decree of Rs.10,460 had been granted is lingering for the last about 30 years when the respondent with his amputated leg has crossed almost half of his age. In fact by the injury suffered by him the respondent has become incapacitated and invalid, a disadvantage and suffering which he would continue to suffer for the entire life and not only to himself, but has been a source of anguish for his parents and for his children, if there are any.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the question of duty and care of the Railway with regard to a child trespasser is involved and further that the .interest ought not to have been granted. In the facts and circumstances of the case no legal questions of general importance arise in this case. Admittedly the respondent had suffered an injury on the Railway track, which was unfenced and that the learned trial Court as well as High Court have held that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the Railway's employees. In view of such finding it is not necessary to enter into any other question. The learned counsel contended that the respondent had not claimed any interest. However, in the interest of justice the Court was competent to grant interest to the respondent as an ancillary relief. From the arguments of the learned counsel the impression is gathered that so far this amount of Rs.10,460 has not been paid to the respondent. In these circumstances, no interference is called. We refuse to grant leave. AA./P‑245/S Leave refused.