2002 PLP 1892 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 21st August, 1998. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.12,50,000 filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 by the widow and two minor sons of deceased, Muhammad Iqbal Qadri, who died on 22‑7‑1990 in a road accident.

2. The facts as stated in the plaint (Exh.1) are that deceased Muhammad Iqbal Qadri who was husband of plaintiff No. l and father of plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3, was aged about 32 years and was working as Senior Technician in the firm, namely, Business Security Technology (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi and was getting salary and other benefits up to Rs.2,800 per. month; that he was of sound health and sober habits; that on. 22‑7‑1990 at about 10‑00 a.m. while the deceased, driving Motorcycle No.KCN‑7275, reached near Pulia No‑5 at Ibrahim Haideri, he was struck from behind by Water Tanker bearing No.QA‑7264 which was being driven by defendant No.2, namely, Muhammad Pervaiz and which was owned by defendant No.1. As a result of such accident the said Muhammad Iqbal Qadri died on the spot. According to the averments of the plaint, the deceased died of negligence and actionable wrong of the defendants for which plaintiffs have suffered pecuniary loss and damages up to the extent of Rs.12,50,

000. Plaintiffs have prayed for recovery of the said amount as well as interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of suit till realization alongwith the cost.

3. All the three defendants have jointly filed their written statement (Exh.3) denying the factum of accident and involvement of their vehicle. It was stated that the defendant No.2 has been falsely implicated by the police in a case under section 304‑A, P.P.C. As a result of these pleadings, on 17‑3‑1991, following issues were framed (Exh.4): "(1) Whether the death of the deceased Iqbal Hussain Qadri was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Truck No.QA‑7264 while dashing the Motorcycle No.KCN 7275 on 22‑7‑1990? (2) Whether the defendants are liable for the damages/compensation to the plaintiffs jointly and severally, if so, to what extent? (3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to cost and interest as claimed? (4) What should the decree be?"

4. In support of her claim, plaintiff No. l has examined herself as Exh.P.5 and Muhammad Qasim as Exh.P.6. The defendants have neither cross‑examined these witnesses nor have produced any witness in rebuttal to the plaintiffs' claim. A perusal or order passed in this case indicates that their counsel failed to appear in this matter after 12th October, 1994. On 11‑3‑1998, plaintiffs' evidence was recorded and the matter was adjourned to 31‑3‑1998 for defendants' evidence. On that date this Court waited till 1‑30 p.m. but none appeared on behalf of the defendants and. therefore, their side was closed. In such circumstances, there is no rebuttal to the evidence of the plaintiffs. S. The plaintiff No. l has filed her affidavit in evidence as Exh.P.5/1 and alongwith that has filed newspapers cutting as Exh.P.5/4 and copy of F.I.R. as Exh.P.5/5 in order to show that the deceased died of an accident by the water tanker as mentioned earlier. She has also produced Medical Certificatc from Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre as Exh.P.5/ti which shows that the deceased died due to severe haemorrhage which was caused due to the said accident. P.W.2, namely, Muhammad Qasim Qadri has filed his affidavit in evidence as Exh.P.6/1 wherein he has claimed to have witnessed the tragic accident. He has supported the contents of plaint as well as case of the plaintiffs that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck/water tanker No.QA‑7264 on 22‑7‑1990. There is no rebuttal to this evidence. Therefore, Issues Nos.1 and 2 are answered in affirmative and accordingly it is held that the plaintiffs are entitled for monetary compensation for the loss and damages they have suffered in the death of their husband/father.

6. As a result of the findings on Issues Nos. l and 2 now the question remains to determine as to what compensation the plaintiffs are entitled. According to the service certificates (Exhs.P/5/7 to P/5/9). the deceased was earning a sum. of Rs.2.800 per month at the time of his death while he was of the age of 32 years. It was argued by Mr. Nasir Maqsood that it is now well‑established that the expectancy of life, as held by the Courts, is about 70 years and, therefore, the deceased could have earned for next 38 years. He has referred to several cases in support of his contention.

7. The annual earning of the deceased at the time of his death comes to Rs.33,600 and‑therefore he could have earned for next 38 years a sum of Rs.12,76,

800. In this assessed income, 20% more is to be added keeping in view further increments, increased earnings and future prospects which could have been earned by the deceased and which comes to Rs.2,55,

360. In this final total an amount equivalent to Rs.4,25,600 being 20% is to be deducted for the personal, expenses of the deceased. As a result the deceased would have saved Rs.11,06,560 for the benefits and welfare of the plaintiffs.

8. As a result of the above discussion, this suit is decreed for Rs.11,06,560 with 14% interest from the date of suit till realization and with costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./T‑34/K Suit decreed.