Suit for damages and compensation

2019 CLC 759 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Employer and employeeMedical facility, non-providing of by employerEffectPlaintiff was employee of defendants (employers) who were bound to provide him proper medical treatment

Plea raised by plaintiff was that due to failure of defendants to provide medical treatment, he had suffered permanent physical disability due to injury sustained by him during duty

Validity

Defendants neither produced any document about complete recovery of plaintiff nor had questioned authenticity of documents produced by plaintiff

Expert opinion of doctors further substantiated the fact that till March-1999 plaintiff was not fully recovered from injury which inhibited his pursuit of career

Testimony of plaintiff (employee) and undisputed documentary evidence produced by him weighed in favour of plaintiff as against oral evidence of defendant that complete medical treatment was given to plaintiff

To extent of negligence shown by defendants (employers) in providing incomplete medical treatment of plaintiff stood proved

Suit for damages and compensation was decreed accordingly.

2015 SCMR 441 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

O. XXIII, R. 1 & O.VII, R. 11Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)Withdrawal of suitEstoppelScopeRoad accidentSuit for damages and compensationCompromise agreement between defendant and some of the legal heirs of deceasedDefendant depositing compensation amount with Nazir of Court

Legal heirs who were not part of the compromise agreement withdrew their share from the compensation amount but subsequently filed an application for enhancement in compensation

High Court rejected the application for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the same had become infructuous after said legal heirs (who were not signatories to the comprise agreement) had withdrawn their shares from the compensation amount

Legality

Defendant had agreed to deposit Rs.5 million with Nazir of Court, whereafter an application under O.XXIII, R. 1, C.P.C. was filed in the suit, which was signed by wife and children of deceased

Father and mother of deceased did not sign the said application, thus the same was allowed without prejudice to their rights

When father and mother of deceased had not entered into any compromise with the defendant and the fact that suit was still being contested by them, mere subsequent withdrawal of the amount of their share would not operate as estoppel

Besides father and mother of deceased had agreed to deposit back in court their shares that they had withdrawn

Father and mother of deceased were contesting the suit and wanted its disposal on merits, hence dismissal of their application and suit on mere presumption of certain facts was not warranted by law

Counsel for defendant consented to disposal of the present petition on the terms that so far as the claim of the wife and children of deceased was concerned, which had been paid to them, the suit shall be deemed to have been finally disposed of, while subject to deposit of whole of the amount in court, which the father and mother of deceased had withdrawn during the pendency of the suit, the suit shall stand revived and would proceeded further in accordance with law

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed accordingly.

2015 MLD 61 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Agony and mental tortureSuit for damages and compensationQuantum of damages, determination ofRule of thumb, application ofObligation of court to determine damages once it was established that plaintiff suffered mental tortureScope

Once the Trial Court had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff suffered mental torture and agony for which defendant was responsible, the Trial Court had to grant damages as compensation

Such damages were obviously general damages and discretion was to be exercised in justifying the quantum of compensation to plaintiff

Such quantum of damages was to be determined by following the "rule of thumb", and any accurate and definite answer to the question of quantum of damages was not possible

While sufferings of human beings can be appreciated, but the magnitude / impact of mental torture could not be; and therefore, it was humanly impossible to assess a fair compensation to the satisfaction of a person who had complained of injury

Trial Court, even in absence of any method to determine a fair assessment of damage, was still under an obligation to decide an amount of money as compensation keeping in view facts and circumstances placed on record by the injured/plaintiff, to show how tortuous the conduct of the aggressor was and for how long the plaintiff remained under mental stress

While applying the "rule of thumb":, the conscious of the court should be satisfied that the damages to be awarded, if not completely, then satisfactorily compensate the plaintiff.

2013 CLD 66 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 73Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, R. 10Breach of contractSuit for damages and compensationNecessary or proper partyDefendant's application for striking out his name as a defendant in the suit was dismissed by Trial CourtValidity

Plaintiff had filed suit on the basis of an oral agreement between him and the other defendant and no specific role had been mentioned in the plaint against the defendant

Main grievance of the plaintiff was against the defendant Company and its officials whereas the defendant was only an estate advisor for said Company

Defendant was not a beneficiary of the alleged oral agreement

Compensation for breach of contract could be claimed from a party which had breached the terms of the agreement

Person who was not a party to contract was neither necessary nor proper party in a suit for damages

High Court set aside order of Trial Court and allowed the defendant's application for striking out his name as defendant in the suit

Revision was allowed, accordingly.