1999 PLP 883 (YLR)
Malik MUHAMMAD SAEED‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS and others‑‑‑Defendants
| Citation | 1999 PLP 883 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | M. Shaiq Usmani, J |
| Parties | Malik MUHAMMAD SAEED‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS and others‑‑‑Defendants |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 883 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 883 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: M. Shaiq Usmani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 883 (YLR) (Malik MUHAMMAD SAEED‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS and others‑‑‑Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dates of hearing: 3rd and 4th November, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 1‑‑‑Damages‑‑‑Death of deceased was caused due to an accident with a bus‑‑ Defendant/company was the owner of the bus and the defendant/driver was its employee‑‑ Evidence of defendant/driver as compared to that of the person who signed the written statement on behalf of defendant/company‑‑ Comparison‑‑‑Responsibility of accident‑‑ Determination‑‑‑Evidence of the driver had to be given more credence than the evidence of the passengers of the bus as the averments in the written statement which had been signed by a person who had no personal knowledge of the accident‑ Where according to the defendant/driver, cause of accident was failure of brakes, then the blame entirely rested upon the defendant/company, and thus, the same extended to the defendant/driver, who should have had indications of the impending failure of the brakes‑‑‑Defendant/company was vicariously liable for the death caused to the deceased who were hit by the bus of the defendant/company. (b) Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 1‑‑‑Damages‑‑‑Claim in tort and under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855‑‑‑Distinction and governing principles‑‑‑In case of former no definite guiding principles can be laid down because calculation of such damages will of necessarily be based on intangible factors, in case of the latter the factors almost wholly are tangible as they relate to pecuniary benefits that accrue or are expected to accrue‑‑‑Necessary that general principles for calculating the damages that can, be claimed in a fatal accident are laid down so that it becomes easier for plaintiffs to lead necessary evidence‑‑‑General principles, being; age of deceased; nature of the health of deceased; working life of. deceased; educational qualification of deceased; family background of deceased; earning capacity of deceased; future increase in .income and inflation; personal allowance of deceased and sums available for benefit of claimants‑‑‑Such principles are by no means exhaustive and Court can, of course, lay down other principles that can lead to determination of damages. (c) Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 1‑‑‑Damages‑‑‑Distribution of share among plaintiffs‑‑Principles‑‑Wherever there are more plaintiffs than one then the plaintiffs would share the damages in accordance with their share in inheritance under Muslim Law as per the sect the individual plaintiff belonged to. Nasir Maqsood for Plaintiff. Ikhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui for Defendants.
Judgment & Decree
(2) Good. (3) 60 years. Balance working life 40 years attaining age (4) Class 6, Bright student. (5) Middle Class. (6) Teachers job. Employee. (7) 20% (8) 33 % deduction. (9) For first 10 years contribution of 50 % of total earning less 33 % . For next 30 years contribution of 10% of total earning less 33 % . It is more than likely that the deceased would have become a teacher but not after two years as stated in the affidavit because by then she would be only in class 8 and 14 years old. She would have at least required another eight years education to be able to become a teacher. Consequently, her working life would have begun at the age of
20. Thus, she would have a working life of 40 years as per principle laid down. According to the evidence led, I accept that but the time she would have earned Rs.5,000 per month. However, I do not accept that she would have also be employed in domestic work as she would fall in the category of employed person as per principle laid down. Calculation of damages is as follows: Rupees Rupees (a) Earning during working life of 10 years @ Rs.5,000 per month 600,000 (b) Future increase in income @ 20% 120,000 (c) Total Earning. 720,000 (d) Personal allowance deduction 33 % 237,600 (e) Remaining total earning. 482,400 (f) Contribution to family purse‑Middle Class @ 50% 241,200 (g) Earning during next 30 years of working life. 1,800,000 (h) Future increase in income @a 20% 360,000 (i) Total Earning. 2,160,000 (j) Personal allowance Deduction @ 33 % 712,800 (k) Remaining Total Earning. 1,447,209 (1) Contribution of a Female to family purse after 30 years age @ 10%. 1,44,720 Total contribution to family purse 385,920 Name of deceased Halima Bibi female. Amount of claim Rs,600.000 (1) 80 years. (2) Feeble. (3) Nil. (4) Barely literate. (5) Middle Class. (6) Domestic work/Teaching Qur'an etc. (7) 20% (8) 33 % deduction. (9) Contribution is saving to the family that is total saving less 33%. It is obvious that the lady has no working life left and she is too old to do any useful work in the house. However, I am prepared to accept that she could live perhaps for another five years and could teach Qur'an to the children of her family as brought out, in evidence and unrebutted by defendants. In my view her earning capacity would not exceed Rs.500 per month. Calculation of damages is as follows Rupees Rupees (a) Earning during working life of 5 years @ Rs.500 per month 30,000 (b) Future increase in income a 20% . 6000 (c) Total Earning. 36,000 (d) Personal allowance deduction 33%. 11,880 (e) Remaining total earning. 24,120 (f) Contribution to family purse is saving to the family i.e. (E) above 24,120 Name of Deceased Erum Female. Amount of claim Rs.13,520,000 (1) 17 years (2) Good. (3) 60 years. Working life 40 years. (4) GCE 'O' Level and Certificate of Secondary Education. Average student. (5) Middle Class. (6) Computer Operator. (7) 20% . (8) 33 % deduction. (9) For first 10 years contribution of 50 % of total earning less 33 % . For next 30 years contribution of 10 % of total earning less 33 % . I would accept that the deceased would have become a Computer Operator and would have earned about Pounds 10,000 per annum but after she would have attained the age of 20 years, which would give her working life of 40 years. Calculation damages is as follows:‑‑ Pounds Pounds (a) Earning during working life of 10 years @ Pounds. 10,000 per annum 100,000 (b) Future increase in income @ 20 % . 20,000 (c) Total Earning. 1,20,000 (d) Personal allowance deduction 33%. 39,600 (e) Remaining total earning. 80,400 (f) Contribution to family purse‑Middle Class @ 50%. 40,200 (g) Earning during next 30 Years of working life. 300,000 (h) Future increase in income @ 20 % 60,000 (i) Total Earning. 3,60,000 (j) Personal allowance Deduction @ 33%. 118,800 (k) Remaining Total Earning. 241,200 (l) Contribution of a Female to family purse after 30 years age @ 10 %. 24,120 Total contribution to family purse in pounds. 64,320 Converted into Rupees @ Rs.75 = Pound. Rs.4,824,000 50% adjustment for earning in an foreign county where living standard is high. Rs.2,412,000 Suit No.944 of 1987 Name of Deceased Akhtar Begum Female. Amount of claim Rs.2,000,000. (1) 47 years. (2) Good. (3) 60 years. Left 13 years working life. (4) No evidence brought but literate. (5) Middle Class (6) Domestic work (7) 20% (8) 33% (9) Contribution is saving to the family i.e. total saving less 33%. The plaintiff are obviously immigrants in. the U.K. and in all probability originally belonged to working class in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Consequently it is not possible to imagine that the deceased would be qualified enough to assist in office work of the plaintiff in his business. However, I do accept that she would be actively involved in domestic work. It is well‑known that domestic help is expensive in the U.K. but at the same time it must be also taken into account that domestic help is not available to majority of the people in that country and every one does his own domestic work. As a rule a part time maid in England is paid about 20 Pounds a week that is about Pounds 80 per month or Pounds 960 per annum. Consequently, I would accept that the deceased domestic help could be quantified at Pounds 960 per annum. Calculation damages is as follows:‑‑ Pounds Pounds (a) Earning during working life of years Pounds 960 per annum. 12,480 (b) Future increase in income a 20 % . 2,469 (c) Total Earning. 14,976 (d) Personal allowance deduction 33 % . 4,942 (e) Remaining total earning. 10,034 (f) Contribution to family purse is saving to The family i.e. (E) above Converted into Rs. @ 75=Pound. Rs.752,550 50% Adjustment for earning in a foreign country where living standard is high. Rs.376.275 The damages that the plaintiffs are thus, entitled to are shown against the such heading "Contribution to family purse" in the tables above under each suit. These damages are being summarised below:‑‑ S.No Suit No. Damages in (Rs) (1) 839/1987 1,804,176 (2) 840/1987 385,920 (3) 942/1987 24,120 (4) 943/1987 2,412,000 (5) 944/1987 376,275 The said suits are, thus, decreed for the sums mentioned against each suit above alongwith interest as prayed. Wherever there are more plaintiffs than one then the plaintiffs would share the damages in accordance with their share in inheritance under Muslim Law as per the sect the individual plaintiff belongs to. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑420/K