1997 PLP 2787 (MLD)

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to cost and interest as claimed. (4) What other reliefs the plaintiff and other dependant legal heirs are entitled to. (5) What should the decree be? The plaintiff examined S. Wasi Sajjad Jafri, Fouzia, (the plaintiff) and Muhammad Hanif; while the defendants examined Sarfraz Khan and Abdul Rasheed. I have examined the record and the proceedings and have heard Mr. Nasir Maqsood, the learned counsel for the plaintiff. My findings on the issues are as follows:‑-- Issue No. 1: The plaintiff's witness Muhammad Hanif has stated that he saw the accident himself. According to him, it occurred on the 30th May, 1987, at about 8 or 8‑30 p.m. at a bus stop on route No.1‑D when a bus of the defendant No.1, which did not have head‑lights, came there and dashed one pedestrian, who died on the spot. He has also stated that he knew the deceased and therefore went to the house of the deceased and informed his wife about the accident. The witness was cross‑examined as to the reasons for his presence at the bus stop at the relevant time and he has explained that he was waiting for a bus in order to go to one Aslam a customer of his employer because he was directed by the employer to go to the customer to bring a Suzuki for loading the goods. He has further stated in the cross‑examination that the bus did not stop after the accident but proceeded further and that he had noted the number of the bus. Giving details of the accident, he has stated that it was the front portion of the left side of the bus which had hit the deceased. Thus, far from creating any doubt about the testimony of this witness, the cross‑examination has only further confirmed the veracity of the evidence. The defendants have examined Sarfaraz Khan (the defendant No.2) who was the driver of the bus and Abdul Rasheed who was the Conductor of the bus. Both these witnesses have denied that any accident occurred and have stated that after the bus had' proceeded further from bus stop 8‑1/2 a crowd of people stopped the bus, forced the driver to off‑load the passengers of the bus, and to take a dead body to hospital. The version of these witnesses is totally contradictory to the plea of the defendant No. l in the written statement wherein not only the accident has been admitted but it is alleged that the deceased dashed against the bus. The evidence of two defence witnesses, therefore, cannot be believed. I, therefore, hold that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to defendant No. l which was being driven by its employee the defendant No.2. Issue No.2: The plaintiff in her evidence has stated that at the time of the death of the deceased, she and the plaintiff had three children, namely, Shumaila, Zeeshan and Munni. This evidence has not been rebutted. The plaintiff and the aforesaid legal heirs of the deceased are, therefore, entitled to compensation from the defendants on account of the death of the deceased. Issues Nos.3. 4 and 5: These issues concern the relief to which the plaintiff is entitled and may, conveniently, be considered together. The deceased, according to his National Identity Card, was 35 years old at the time of his death; and the plaintiff, according to her National Identity Card, was 25 years at that time. The ages of the other dependants of the deceased mentioned above were; Shumaila 7 years; Zeeshan 2 years: and Munni 1 year. On the basis that the deceased was a healthy young man and he could be expected to live to the age of 70 years, the plaintiff and his other dependants have been deprived, by the death of the deceased, of the pecuniary benefit which would they have otherwise received for a period of 35 years. The evidence of S. Wasi Sajjad Jafri that the deceased was earning Rs.1,617 per month has not been shaken in cross‑examination and the evidence of Muhammad Hanif that the deceased used to give tuition to his two brothers has also not been shaken. The income of the deceased from the tuitions was Rs.1,

000. The total income of the deceased per month, thus came to Rs.2,

617. The deceased would, thus, have earned Rs.10,99,140 during the remaining period of his life i.e. 35 years. That income would also have gone up in due course of time; therefore, 20% of Rs.10,99,140, viz Rs.2,19,828, should be added to it in order to arrive at the gross income of the deceased. The total of gross income, thus, comes to Rs.13,18,

968. Out of gross income of the deceased a deduction to the extent of 1 /6th thereof; amounting to Rs.2,19,828, should be made on account of the personal expenses of the deceased, so that the net amount of the pecuniary benefit of which the plaintiff and the other dependents of the deceased have been deprived comes to Rs.10,99,

140. However, the plaintiff has claimed only Rs.10,00,000 in the suit. The suit is, therefore, decreed for Rs.10,00,000 with interest thereon at the rate of 14 % per annum from the date of the suit till payment and costs of the suit, against the defendants jointly and severally. The decretal amount shall be divided among the plaintiff and the other dependents of the deceased as follows:- (1) Fouzia Begum (the plaintiff) 50% (2) Shumaila) (3) Zeeshan) 50% to be divided among them equally. (4) Munni ) Since the aforesaid children are still minors their respective shares of the decretal amount shall be invested by Nazir of this Court in Defence Saving Certificate. Mr. Shafaat Hussain for the defendants has appeared at this stage and says that he was busy before another bench. H.B.T./F‑8/K Suit decreed.