MUHAMMAD AZIM Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN

This is a suit for recovery of compensation in respect of death of Mr. Mohammad Saleem Chief Engineer, National Shipping Corporation under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855.

2. Case of the plaintiffs is that they are heirs of the deceased Mohammad Saleem. The deceased was employed as Chief Engineer in National Shipping Corporation and was drawing a basic salary of Rs.5,600 and allowances which brought his income to about Rs.10,000 per month. On 14‑9‑1977 at about 4.00 P.M. while the deceased was going on foot in Gulshan‑e‑Iqbal he was hit by truck No. KCT 7446. The defendant No.l Mohammad Ameen was rashly and negligently driving the said truck at that time. This truck was owned by Allah Yar defendant No.3 who was the employer of defendant No.l. The defendant No.2 is an Insurance Company. The deceased was immediately removed to Jinnah Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. At the time of his death the deceased was about 30 years of age. He was maintaining all the plaintiffs. He used to spend all his income on the plaintiffs and used to retain very small amount for his personal expenses. A compensation of Rs.25,00,000 has been claimed on account of the death of the deceased.

3. Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 have chosen to remain absent in spite of service, hence the suit has proceeded ex parte against them. Defendant No.2 alone has contested the suit and filed written statement denying all the pleas, which need not be reproduced as the same are evident from the issues. Following issues were framed by the Court:‑

(1) Whether the plaintiffs and the minor daughter of the deceased as mentioned in paras. 1 and 2 of the plaint are the representatives/ heirs of the deceased. If so, whether they are the only representatives/ heirs?

(2) Whether the fatal accident was caused by the rash and negligent act of the driver of the truck in question on 14‑9‑1977, owned by defendants Nos. 2 and 3?

(3) Whether the defendant No. 3, who is reported to be the mortgagee of the truck is also liable for payment of compensation jointly and severally with defendants Nos. 1 and 2

(4) What was the age and monthly income of the deceased at the time of his death?

(5) What would have been the normal life span of the deceased had been remained alive?

(6) Whether the plaintiffs, mother and father of the deceased, wife and minor daughter of the deceased are entitled to any compensation. If so, to what extent?

(7) Whether the truck in suit was insured with defendant No.2?

(8) What liability is attached to defendant No.2 under the circumstances. ?

(9) What should be the decree and against whom? My findings on these issues are as follows:‑

4. (1)In the affirmative.'`

(2) In the affirmative.

(3) In the affirmative.

(4) 30 years and Rs.10,000 per month.

(5) 60 years i. e. 30 years more.

(6) As follows.

(7) Not proved.

(8) No.

(9) Suit decreed against defendants No.l and 3 and dismissed against defendant No.2.

5. REASONS

Issues Nos. 1 to 6:

The plaintiffs have examined Ilyas Mustafa Khan Marine Officer exhibit 5. The witness is posted in National Shipping Corporation. He has stated that the deceased was Chief Engineer in P . N . S . C . and was drawing Rs.6,000 per month as basis pay and allowances of the equal amount. He was a healthy person and had the prospects of being promoted up to the post of Managing Director. His income would have this risen to about Rs.40,000 per month. the next witness of the plaintiffs is Shamim Khan Counter Incharge Excise and Taxation Department. He has brought the relevant file of the Excise and Taxation Department and has produced documents as exhibits 6/1, 6/2 and 6/3.

6. The third witness is Sardar Akhtar Butt, Sub Inspector New Town Police Station who has brought the FIR and produced the same as exhibit 7/1.

The 4th witness Syed Ahmed Noori is eye witness of the incident and a neighbour of the deceased. The last witness is plaintiff No .l (ii) Mohammad Riaz Shaikh, the brother of the deceased Mohammad Saleem.

7. The evidence of all these witnesses has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. I am, therefore, of the clear view that it is proved that the deceased Mr. Mohammad Saleem was aged 30 years at the time of his death and had died in a fatal accident due to rash and negligent driving of the defendant No.l driver of truck No. KCT 7446. The said truck is owned by defendant No.3 Allah Yar. I am also satisfied that the prospects of increase of income of the deceased were upto Rs.20,000 per month and he would have lived for another 30 years.

Issues Nos. 7 and 8:

Mr. A. Rauf, Advocate for defendant No.2 has referred to National Insurance Corporation Act and pointed out that defendant No.2 was established only for insuring the public property. Admittedly the truck belonged to a private person and the question of its being insured with defendant No.2 does not arise. Moreover, neither there is allegation nor any evidence has been led by the plaintiffs to show that this truck was insured with defendant No.2 Mr. Abul Khair Ansari also concedes this position. Hence I hold that defendant No.2 is not liable for compensation. Coming to the amount of compensation it may be pointed out that it was expected that the deceased would have given a support of at least Rs.2,000 per month to his parents and of Rs.4,000 to his wife and daughter had he been alive. His father died after 5 years of the accident. His mother is still alive. His father would have received an assistance of Rs.60,000 from the deceased while his mother who was 50 years of age was expected to live up to 60 years age would have received Rs.1,20,000 from the deceased. The assistance that the wife and the daughter would have received from the deceased would have been about Rs.5,00,000 each.

9. I, therefore, decree the plaintiffs' suit against defendants 1 and 3 and direct that defendants Nos.l and 3 shall pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.1,80,000 to the plaintiff No.l (i), (ii) and (iii), who are living jointly and together. I further direct that defendants Nos. 1 and 3 shall also pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000 to plaintiffs No.2 and 3 who are also living together and plaintiff No.2 is mother and guardian of plaintiff No.3. The defendants Nos. 1 and 3 shall also bear the costs of the suit.

M.Y.H./M‑377/K Suit decreed.