1998 PLP 573 (CLC)
WASEEMA and another‑‑‑Plaintiffs Versus KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
| Citation | 1998 PLP 573 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Zafar Hadi Shah, J |
| Parties | WASEEMA and another‑‑‑Plaintiffs Versus KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION |
| Primary Law | Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 573 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 573 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Zafar Hadi Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 573 (CLC) (WASEEMA and another‑‑‑Plaintiffs Versus KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 7th March, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.1‑‑‑Death of deceased was caused by wrongful act and neglect of employee of defendant company‑‑‑No rebuttal to such version of death having been produced, death of deceased was deemed to have been caused by wrongful act and negligence of employee of defendant company‑‑‑Both defendants were thus, liable to pay compensation to heirs of deceased‑‑‑Salary of deceased accepted to be in accordance with version of official witness‑‑‑Life expectancy of deceased was taken to be 70 years‑‑‑Deceased was 54 years age as per his National Identity Card and could have been in service for 6 more years‑‑‑Salary of deceased was worked out for six years and in addition, after retirement he would have earned specified amount on re‑employment in private capacity‑‑ Total income from deceased's present employment and his future employment was counted and plaintiff's (heir's) suit was decreed to the extent of amount so counted. Nasir Maqsood for Plaintiff. Shafaat Hussain (absent) for Defendant.
Judgment & Decree
ISSUE N0.5:
14. The deceased Shujjat Ali died due to the negligence of defendant No.2 who was an employee of defendant No. l and further that the death occurred due to the negligence of defendant No.2 while performing his official duties as an employee of defendant No. 1, therefore, both the defendants are liable jointly and severally for the damages. ISSUE N0.6:
15. The parties did not address the Court on this issue which means that they have dropped this issue. This issue is, therefore, decided as not pressed. ISSUE N0.7:
16. Mst. Yasmin is admittedly the married daughter of deceased Shujjat Ali. In the plaint it is averred that the husband of Mst. Yasmin had no proper earning. There is no evidence in this regard as such this issue is answered that Mst. Yasmin is not entitled to any share in the compensation.
17. With regard to the. compensation claimed by the plaintiff in the suit according to the statement of account filed is Rs.7,00,
000. The calculation made by the plaintiff's counsel for Rs.7,00,000 is not the correct calculation. The earning capacity of the deceased has been shown as Rs.3,000 per month whereas from the evidence adduced on plaintiff's behalf, the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.1,110 per month. It is significant to note that the plaintiffs have alleged that at the time of death the age of the deceased was 45 years. The plaintiffs have not filed any document to show that the age of the deceased was 45 years. Plaintiff's own witness P.W. 1 Abdul Haq Qureshi in cross‑examination stated that according to service record of late Shujjat Ali maintained by the corporation, he was born in 1929. In the year 1989 the retirement age of the employees of the corporation was 60 years. The age as given by this witness cannot be accepted as correct as no service record has been produced by this witness in support of his evidence. At the same time, the word of month of the plaintiff's witness can also not be accepted without there being any documentary evidence in support thereof. The plaintiff's witness deliberately did not produce the NIC of the deceased as such the presumption under law will be that the same would have gone against the plaintiffs. Be that as it may, the plaintiff's have filed a copy of Form 'B' as Exh. 7/2 which shows the number of the NIC of the Head of the family as 520 32‑142723. The same number of NIC of the deceased appears in Exh.7/4 which is the death certificate of the deceased. From these two documents, the year of birth of the deceased is proved to be 1932. From the above, the age of the deceased at the time of his death in the year 1986 was 54 years and not 45 years as alleged by the plaintiffs. The deceased as such would have retired after 6 years i.e., in the year 1992 after reaching 60 years of age. Accordingly, the deceased's income, in case if he would have been alive, would have been as under: QUANTUM OF DAMAGES: (a) Average span of life in Pakistan. 70 years (b) Loss of pecuniary benefits to the legal heirs 16 years (54‑70) (age of the deceased minus average span of life). (c) Earning capacity of the deceased per month Rs.1,110 per by working as driver in K.T.C. (defendant month X 72 No. l) as proved. Up to 24‑8‑1992 up to the months = age of the deceased as 60 years. 79,920. (d) Additional earning of a sum of Rs.2,000 per Rs.1,44,000 month by driving Suzuki privately for 6 years up to the age of 60 years. (e) After retirement he could have earned Rs.4,80,000 Rs,4,000 per month by driving taxi for remaining 10 years which comes to Rs.4,000 X 12 X 10, (f) Gross loss of benefits Rs.7,03,920 (g) Less 1/3 on account of personal expenses Rs.2,34,640 Rs.7,03,920‑1/3. (h) Net loss of pecuniary benefits to the Rs.4,69,280 beneficiaries The suit is decreed for Rs.4,69,280 against the defendants with costs and interest at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of suit till payment. The apportionment amongst the legal heirs will be as under: (1) Sajid Ali Rs.1,87,712 (2) Sadaquat Ali Rs.1,87,712 (3) Mst. Waseema Rs.93.856
Rs.4,69,280
A.A./W‑13/K Suit decreed.