2002 PLP 1845 (CLC)
FEROZA BEGUM‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Ministry of Local Self‑Government and 2 others‑‑‑Defendants
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1845 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ata‑ur‑Rehman, J |
| Parties | FEROZA BEGUM‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Ministry of Local Self‑Government and 2 others‑‑‑Defendants |
| Primary Law | Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1845 (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 2002 PLP 1845 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ata‑ur‑Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1845 (CLC) (FEROZA BEGUM‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Ministry of Local Self‑Government and 2 others‑‑‑Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 10th March, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 1‑‑‑Death of deceased in road accident caused by rash and negligent driving of defendant‑‑‑Suit for compensation‑‑‑Eye‑witness in his affidavit‑in‑evidence had supported case of plaintiff regarding rash and negligent driving of defendant resulting into death of the deceased‑‑ Eye‑witness having not been cross‑examined by defendants, his statement remained unrebutted‑‑‑Omission to cross‑examine eye‑witness on material aspect of evidence, would lead to conclusion that defendants had admitted veracity and truth of statement of eye‑witness‑‑‑Statement of eye‑witness in respect of rash and negligent driving of defendant would be deemed to have been admitted and would be relied upon by Court‑‑Finding of Court in respect of issue regarding death of deceased caused on account of rash and negligent driving of defendant being in affirmative, defendants were liable for payment of compensation to plaintiff jointly and severally‑‑ Calculation of amount of loss for which plaintiff was entitled foe accidental death of deceased was not questioned by defendants‑‑‑Amount of compensation determined keeping in view average life span in Pakistan, earning capacity of deceased and other losses, being in consonance with law in respect of quantification of compensation, suit was decreed accordingly. Muhammad Maqsood for Plaintiff.
Judgment & Decree
(i) Average life span in Pakistan 70 years (ii) Loss of pecuniary benefits by the plaintiff for 27 years as the plaintiff was 43 years old at the time of accident: (70‑‑43) 27 years (iii) Income per month by running a denier and painter workshop and Garrage in New Karachi at Rs.5,000 per month on average (iv) Annual income comes to Rupees. (5000 x 12) Rs.60,000 (v) Average loss of pecuniary benefits for 27 years (60,000 x 27) Rs.16,20,000 (vi) Add 20% on account of increment on aggregate income for overall (Rs.16,20,000 divide by 5) Rs.3,24,000 (viii) Gross loss of pecuniary benefits for 27 years (16,20,000 + 3,24,000) Rs.19 44,000 (viii) Less 1/3rd on account of personal expenses of the deceased (19,44,000 divide by 3) Rs.6,48,000 (ix) Net loss of pecuniary benefits. (19,44,000 ‑ 6,48,000 Rs.12,96,000
14. The above calculation is not questioned by the defendants and the assessment made in the said statement of claim appears to be in consonance with the law laid down by the. superior Courts in respect of quantification of the compensation in fatal accident cases. Since the plaintiff has prayed for a decree merely in the sum of Rs. 12,00,000 I am not inclined to grant more than the amount claimed. Thus, in view of the fact that the evidence of the plaintiff on the factum of the ages of plaintiff and deceased on the point of present and expected earning capacity of the deceased forming the basis of the claim is not rebutted and controverted, nor defendants have led any evidence to prove diminution of plaintiff's claim. I am inclined to hold that the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs.12.00,000 on account of loss of pecuniary benefits with mark‑up at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization and cost. The decree to be satisfied within two months. H. B. T. /F‑35/K Suit decreed.