1987 PLP 883 (MLD)

On the contrary the case of the defendant himself is that the two deceased and the injured appeared from behind the bus and came in front of his tanker suddenly and abruptly and therefore he had little time to apply brakes and stop his tanker to save them. It would therefore appear that the defendant No.2 is in the circumstances of the case liable for rash and negligent driving as a result of which the death of two deceased was caused, because he should have been very careful while passing near the bus. Apart from the above circumstances there is evidence of Sharif Ahmed, the injured himself whose presence at the scene of offence is not only proved by injuries on his person having been sustained by the same tanker but is also admitted by the defendants. Sharif Ahmed has stated on oath that the defendant No.2 was driving the tanker rashly and negligently and at a very fast speed and dashed against him, his brother and mother.

7. No doubt the defendant No.2 has also been examined and he has denied the allegation of rash and negligent driving but as I have already pointed out that he has failed to show that he was cautious enough to take care of the persons coming from behind the bus which was on his left hand side. I therefore hold this issue in the affirmative.

8. Deceased Aziz Ahmed was at the time of his death aged about 43 years, his earning has been shown as Rs.800.per month in the plaint. The Employment certificate exhibit 6/1 however shows that his basic pay was Rs.531, award statement was Rs.96 and cost of living allowance was Rs.162.70 and house rent Rs.340 plays Rs.40. This would bring the total of his earning to Rs.1169.70. So far as the conveyance allowance of Rs.103 is concerned the same would not have benefited the family of the deceased because the conveyance allowance would have been spent even if the deceased would have been alive. It was stated from the Bar that the deceased had his own house and therefore the house rent was an additional income. Hence I find that his income at the time of his death would have been about Rs.1000 Rs.1800 has been shown as an exaggerated income. The expected future increase in his income would have been another 50% bringing it to about Rs.1500 per month. Out of this 1/6 be deducted as personal expenses. Rs.1250 would therefore be the net income of the deceased to which his dependents would be entitled. The expectancy of life in such cases has been fixed upto 65 oars and therefore the span during which he would be living would be 22 years. This brings the amount of compensation as Rs:3,30,

000. Out of this amount Rs.5,000 has already been paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs. Defendant's advocate has relied upon the case of Mst.Hamida Begum v. Suleman Jan reported in P L D 1961 W.P. Kar. 529 and submitted that the children of the deceased were not entitled to compensation as they were not the beneficiaries. I have gone through this ruling. It does not say that the children of the deceased are not entitled to compensation. It has been misunderstood by the learned counsel for the defendants. It says that "invalid brother of the deceased and his wife and children" (thereby meaning that the wife and children of the invalid brother of the deceased) were not entitled to compensation as they were not beneficiaries of the deceased. He has also relied upon the case of Gul Banoo referred to above in respect, of his contention that the expectancy of life was 60 years. It may be stated that even in this ruling it was stated that the expectancy of life in decided cases has been fixed from 55 to 65 years and therefore in absence of specific evidence Saleem Akhtar, J. had fixed it at 60 years but in the present case there is specific evidence to show that the deceased was enjoying good health and was expected to live such longer.

9. I therefore decree the plaintiff's suit against both the defendants jointly and severally in the sum of Rs.3,25,

000. The amount apportioned as under:

Zaibunnisa Rs.1,65,750.00 Muhammad Ahmed Rs.13,000.00 "Keel Rs.14,000.00 Shabbir Ahmed Rs.15,000.00 Bashir Ahmed Rs.16,000.00 Sabir Ahmed Rs.17,000.00 Farhat Jahan Rs.18,000.00 Nazir Ahmed Rs.20,000.00 Zameer Ahmed Rs.20,000.00 Zaheer Ahmed Rs.26,000.00 Total Rs.3,25,000.00

10. So far as deceased Mst.Tauheed Fatima is concerned she was aged about 60 years at the time of her death. Her expectancy of life would have been for 5 years more. Her income has been shown as Rs.1200 but this seems to be on the excessive side. I therefore fix it at Rs.600 per month. After deducting her personal expenses it comes to Rs.500 per month. At this rate it would be Rs.30,000 and out of this amount a 'sum of Rs.5,000 has already been paid by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff and the dependents legal heirs of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.25,000 as compensation. I therefore decree the plaintiff's suit in the sum of Rs.25,000 which shall be apportioned amongst the dependents legal heirs of the deceased as follows:

Shamsunnisa Rs.12,500.00 Shgbbana Rs.2,500.00 Karamatullah Rs.3,000.00 Irfanullah Rs.3,000.00 Shujjatullah Rs.4,000.00 Total Rs.25,000.00

11. Besides the above compensation I award interest in each case at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till realization of the amount. The costs of the suit shall be borne by the defendants. K.B.A./Z-22/K Suit decreed.