1995 PLP 1969 (CLC)
MAI NOORAN‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus NATIONAL LOGISTIC CELL, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1969 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | G.H. Malik, J |
| Parties | MAI NOORAN‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus NATIONAL LOGISTIC CELL, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, |
| Primary Law | Fatal Accidents Act (I of 1855)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1969 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Fatal Accidents Act (I of 1855)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1969 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: G.H. Malik, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1969 (CLC) (MAI NOORAN‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus NATIONAL LOGISTIC CELL, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 6th April, 1995
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 1‑‑‑Death by rash and negligent driving of truck belonging to defendants and driven by their employee‑‑‑Evidence on record clearly indicated that cause of death was truck driver's fast and negligent driving‑‑‑No dispute was raised with regard to heirs of deceased persons and respective income of deceased persons‑‑‑Average age was determined to be 70 years in case of each of deceased person‑‑Income of all the dead persons was worked out and after deduction of their respective expenses which they would have spent on themselves, the rest of the respective amount in each case was to be divided between heirs in accordance with their shares in inheritance‑‑‑Amount which was to fall to the share of minors was directed to be deposited in some beneficial saving scheme while other beneficiaries would be paid their share in cash. Nasir Maqsood for Plaintiff. Major (Rttd.) A. Rauf Khan for Defendants Nos.l and 2.
Judgment & Decree
A. Income of the deceased for 15 years at Rs.1,500 per month Rs.2,70,000 B. Increase in income at 20% Rs.54,000 of Rs.2,70,000
Total: Rs.3,24,000 C. Less 1/3 on account of personal expenses of the deceased Rs.1.08.000
Rs 216,000
Suit No.322/88:--‑Najibullah, a brother of the deceased, has deposed that the deceased was 32 years old at the time of his death, was in good health, was working at a Tandoor and earning thereby Rs.1,500 to Rs.2,000 per month; that the plaintiff (father of the deceased), Mst. Gohar (the mother of the deceased), Ameela (widow of the deceased) and Najeeba (daughter of the deceased) are heirs of the deceased; and that the deceased used .to maintain those heirs. This evidence has not been challenged in cross‑examination and the learned counsel for defendants Nos.l and 2 concedes that the income of the deceased may be taken at Rs.1,500 per month. On that basis, the amount of the benefit of which the heirs of the deceased have been deprived comes to Rs.6,84,000 as follows:‑
A. Income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.1,500 per month for 38 years. Rs.6,84,000 B. Increase in income at 20% of Rs.6,84,000 Rs.1,36,800
Total Rs.8,20,800 C. Less 1/6 on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Rs.1,36,800
Rs.6,84,000 The plaintiff has, however, claimed only Rs.5,80,
000. That amount will, therefore, be considered the amount of the benefit. Issue No.3.‑‑‑There is no evidence on this issue and no policy of insurance has been produced. The issue is, therefore, answered in the negative. Issue No.4.‑‑‑The plaintiffs and other heirs of the deceased are therefore entitled to recover from the defendants Nos.l and 2 the following amounts on account of loss of pecuniary benefit caused by the death of the deceased in each case‑
Suit No.320/88 Rs.5,40,000 Suit No.321/88 Rs.2,16,000 Suit No.322/88 Rs.5,80,000 to be apportioned among them as follows:‑‑ Suit No.320188 Mai Nooran (Widow) 50% Rs.2,70,000 Faizunnisa (Mother) 10% Rs.54,000 Hayatullah Ataullah ] (Sons minors) 8% Rs.43,200 each Asadullah ] Barkatullah Humaira (Daughter minor) 43,200 Suit No.321/88.‑‑In this case the plaintiff and his wife Mst. Gohar are the only heirs and they have been deprived of the benefits for 8 and 15 years respectively. They will, therefore, share the amount of the benefits equally for 8 years and thereafter Mst. Gohar would be entitled to the full amount thereof. 8 the amount of benefit for 8 years comes to Rs.1,15,200 leaving a balance of Rs.1,00,
800. The plaintiff will, therefore, be entitled to receive Rs.57,600 (being 50%) of Rs.1,15,200 while Mst. Gohar will be entitled to receive Rs.57,600 (being the remaining 50% of Rs.1,15,200 plus the balance of Rs.1,00,800 thus making a total of Rs.1,58,
400. Suit No.322/88 Ameela(widow) 50% Rs.2,90,000 Najeeba (daughter‑minor) 30% Rs.1,74,000 Haji Juma (plaintiff) 10% Rs.58,000 Mst. Gohar ‑do‑10% Rs.58,000 Issue No.6.
In the circumstances, the suits as against the defendant No.3 are dismissed and are decreed against the defendants Nos.i and 2, jointly and severally, in favour of‑‑. Suit No 320/88 Mai Nooran widow Rs. 2, 70,000 Faizunnisa for Rs.54,000 Hayatullah ] Ataullah ] Asadullah ] for Rs.43,200 each to be invested by the Barkatullah ] Nazir for their benefit until they, Humaira ] respectively attain majority. Suit No 321/88 Haji Juma (Plaintiff) for Rs.57,600 Mst. Gohar ‑do‑ for Rs.1,00,800 Suit No.322/88 Ameela for Rs.2,90,000 Haji Juma for Rs. 58,000 Mst. Gohar for Rs. 58,000 Najeeba for Rs.1,74,000 to be invested by the Nazir for her benefit until she attains majority. The defendants Nos.l. and 2 shall deposit the amounts with the Nazir of this Court with interest thereon at the rate of 10%o per annum from the date of the suit till payment and costs of the suit. The Nazir shall invest the shares of the minors as indicated above and shall pay the shares of other beneficiaries to them. AA./M‑2107/K Suits decreed.