Find a Lawyer

KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH CHAIRMAN versus SHOUKAT HAYAT

The Section 1 Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), the Section 3 High Court, awarded compensation for the fatal accident compensation plaintiff, who was the legal heir of the deceased victim, died against the defendant's defendant. A recovery case was registered. The bus was owned by the plaintiff while he was cheated and neglected by his driver who crushed the plaintiff's predecessor at the age of 39 and was earning Rs 2408 a month at the time of death when eyewitnesses presented In doing so, the plaintiff proved that the accident was caused by him. Another person took over the bus owner's assets and liabilities in 1997, while the accident happened in 1988, with the plaintiffs already suing the assets. And the responsibilities assumed by the person there was no clause in the contract, under which the assets and liabilities were seized by the other person giving the impression that he had not accepted any of the obligations. And / or that he was not liable for the responsibility of the defendant (the bus owner) before taking all of his assets, in the absence of such request in the written statement and documents stating that someone was responsible for the defendant. Can't escape Failure to provide any evidence on record contrary to the recorded findings about a plaintiff's average income seeking an intervention by a single judge, the appeal was dismissed. solicitors from Kotla Arab Ali Khan lawyer