Find a Lawyer

Suit No.812 of 1984, decided on 16th April, 1987.

---S.1--Claim for compensation by survivors--Death of deceased occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of a minibus by driver who was in employment of defendant--Both defendant and driver, held, were liable to pay compensation for the loss of pecuniary benefit suffered by plaintiffs--Age of deceased at time of death only 27 years--Counting normal life upto 60 years, he would have lived for another 33 years--Evidence showing that deceased who was a barber used to earn between Rs.2,000 to Rs.2,500 per month and gave Rs.1,800 per month to his wife--Court taking Rs.1,800 as his monthly income and/after deducting Rs.300 as his personal expenses allowing pecuniary benefit to survivors at Rs.1,500 per month for 33 years which amounted to Rs.5,94,000 since plaintiffs themselves had claimed only Rs. four lacs, Court decreed suit for Rs.four lacs only.

Mohammad Maqsood for Plaintiff.

Defendants (absent).

Date of hearing: 16th April, 1987.

Waris Khan son of Nawab Khan was a Barber. He had his barber shop at Feature Colony, Landhi, Karachi. He was a young man of 27 years of age and was earning about 1,800 per month according to the statement of the plaintiff. The plaintiff Mst. Gulshan is the widow of Waris Khan.

2. On 23-12-1983 at about 9.30 p.m. when Waris Khan was going back to his house after closing his shop, a Mini Bus No.837-818 on Route No. C-1 hit Waris Khan. Waris suffered head injuries as a result of this impact and was taken to Jinnah Hospital, where he was admittedly as an indoor patient. The injuries were serious and at about 12 p.m. mid-night Waris Khan died as a result of these injuries. A Death Certificate filed by the plaintiff shows that the deceased died on account of "acute bleeding".

3. The plaintiff is a widow of deceased Waris Khan. She was examined in Court P.W.1 and stated that at the time of his death Waris Khan was 27 years of age and was in very good. health. She has further stated that her husband Waris Khan used to give her Rs.1,800 per month for household expenses. It is further stated by the widow that after three months of the death of her husband a female child was borne to her and she is Yasmin.

4. Eye-witness Sarwar Gul son of Kala Khan has also been examined in support of the case of the. plaintiff and he has stated that at the time of his death he was with Waris Khan going back from the shop, when a racing bus driven at a very high speed tried to overtake other buses. It approached from behind and knocked down the deceased, when he was walking on a footpath. This witness has stated that, a large number of people gathered there and wanted to set the bus on fire. They also manhandled the driver. This witness has further stated that the injury was taken to the Jinnah Hospital, where he was admitted but on account of head injuries suffered by him he did not survive and expired at 12 o'clock in the night. This witness has estimated the average income of the deceased between Rs.2,000 and Rs.2,500 per month. He has stated that the age of the widow is 25 years and the age of the daughter Yasmin at the time of the recording of her statement was 31 years.

5. The defendant No.1 is the owner of the Mini-Bus in question and defendant No.2 was the driver of the bus at the time of the accident and this driver was in the employment of the defendant No.1 and was driving the said bus with authority from the defendant No.1. The defendants were served and the service had been held good. Defendant No.2 was declared ex parte on 25-5-1986. Defendant No.1 has also failed to file any written statement, although he was allowed extension of time to file the written statement on his on application dated 20-2-1985.

6. The evidence on the file shows that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the defendant No.2. The death of the deceased occurred on account of injuries suffered by him as a result of negligent driving of the vehicle and as such both the defendants are jointly liable to pay the compensation for the losses of pecuniary benefit suffered by the plaintiff. It has come on record that the age of the deceased was 27 years at the time of his death and if he had lived the normal span of life upto 60 years he would have lived for another 33 years. According to witness Sarwar Gul, the monthly income of the deceased was between Rs.2,000 and Rs.2,500 According to the statement of the widow, she was getting Rs.1,800 per month from the deceased. I would take Rs.1,800 as the basic income and deducting a sum of Rs.300 per month as personal expense of the deceased, allow the plaintiff a pecuniary benefit equal to Rs.1,500 per month. Calculated on these premises, the losses would be as follows:-

Rs.1,500 p.m. x 12- Rs.1,8000 per year.

For 33 years it would be equal to Rs.18,000 x 33=Rs.5,94,000

As the plaintiff has claimed only Rs.4,00,000 the suit should be decreed in the sum of Rs.4,00,000. Out of this amount, the widow should be paid Rs.1/6th of the decretal amount right away. The balance should remain in custodian legas with the Nazir of this Court and should be invested in the Khas Deposit Certificates. The yound daughter would, however, be entitled to draw such amounts from time to time, as the Court may permit on the application of her mother/ guardian, for the purposes of her maintenance, medical and education expenses. After the daughter has attained majority, they can apply to the Court for the payment of the balance amount remaining with the Nazir.

M.Y.H./G-35/K

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.