SABIHA RIFAT NAZ Versus KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.8,00,000 on account of death of Nasir Ahmed Mubashar due to negligent driving of a bus by the defendant No.2. The suit has been filed for the benefit of the plaintiff as well as of Salman Shahzad, Miss Najamus Sahar, Miss Shamim Afshan and Miss Sadia who are the son and daughters of the deceased.

2. It is alleged that on the 6th July, 1985 at 9 a.m. the deceased was driving his motorcycle with one Raisuddin Ahmed riding on the pillion seat and was proceeding from Jut Lines to his office on Ingle Road via. Fleet Club Road and when he reached the Lucky Star crossing the defendant no.2 while driving Bus No.835‑189 belonging to defendant No. l in rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle from the wrong side and consequently the deceased and Raisuddin Ahmed received severe injuries and the deceased subsequently died. It is further alleged that by the death of the deceased the plaintiffs have been deprived of the pecuniary benefit to the extent of Rs.8,00,000.

3. The defendants in their written statement have taken the plea that the deceased the driver of the scooter was contributory to the alleged accident which was caused due to fault, mistake, negligence and carelessness of the deceased; and that the bus was being driven properly on its route. It is further alleged that the deceased was coming from the opposite side towards bus when he lost his control and dashed with the bus and, consequently, fell down and was injured.

4. Upon the pleadings, the following issues were framed:‑‑

(1) Whether the death of the deceased Nasir Ahmed Mubashir was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Bus No.835‑189 on 6th July, 1985 by defendant No.2, the servant/employee/driver of the defendant No. l?

(2) Whether the defendants are liable to pay the compensation to the plaintiff and other dependent legal heirs, as claimed, jointly and severally?

(3) Whether the plaintiff and other dependent legal heirs are entitled to cost and interest as claimed?

(4) What other relief or reliefs the plaintiff and other legal heirs are entitled to?

5. The plaintiff has examined Muhammad Ahsan, P.WA and Muhammad Abdullah. Defendants have examined Abdul Rasool. In addition to the above witnesses the evidence recorded in the Suit No.523/86 has, by consent of the parties is treated as evidence in this suit. In Suit No.523/86 the evidence of Raisuddin Ahmed and Mohammad Abdullah has been recorded.

6. I have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. My findings on the issues are as follows:‑‑

7. ISSUE NO. 1:

8. The fact that the accident occurred between the bus being driven by defendant No. l and the scooter which was being driven by the deceased; and that the deceased died as a result thereof are not in dispute; nor is it in dispute that the hus belonged to the defendant No. l; and that defendant No.2 was driving the bus as an employee of the defendant No. l in the course of his employment. The question, therefore, in this issue is whether the accident was caused due to negligence of the defendant No.2 as alleged by the plaintiff or the negligence of the deceased as alleged by the defendant. The defendants have led no evidence at all. Their allegation in the written statement has, therefore, not been proved. The evidence of Raisuddin Ahmed recorded on behalf of the plaintiff clearly shows that the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant No.2. Raisuddin Ahmed has stated that "on 6th July, 1985 I was going on the motorcycle of late Nasir Ahmed Mubashar. I was sitting on the back seat and the motorcycle was being driven by late Nasir Ahmed Mubashar. The motorcycle was coming on the Fleet Club Road from the side of Jut Lines towards Fleet Club. When our motorcycle reached the Lucky Star Roundabout, a bus also negotiated a turn from the wrong side of roundabout and collided with our motorcycle from the front".

9. There is nothing in the cross‑examination to challenge or to rebutt the above statement of the witness‑‑Raisuddin Ahmed. The witness has also stated that apart from going in wrong direction, the bus was also being driven at a fast speed.

10. It is clear from the above statement that the bus was not only being driven at a fast speed but that it was on the wrong side of the road. The accident was, therefore, obviously caused by the rash and negligent driving of defendant No.2.

11. ISSUES NOS.2. 3 AND 4:

12. These issues are inter‑connected and are being considered together. In consequence of the finding that the accident and the consequent death of the deceased were caused by the rash and negligent driving of the defendant No.2, the legal heirs of the deceased are obviously entitled to receive compensation. The deceased was 21 years old when he died and could be expected to live for another 44 years. The witness Muhammad Ahsan has deposed that the deceased used to draw a salary of Rs.767.77 per month; and that evidence has not been challenged. On the basis of these facts, Mr. Nasir Maqsood submits that the income which the deceased would have earned should be calculated at the rate of Rs.767.77 per month up to 1992 and, for the remaining period of 37 years at the rate of Rs.1,500 per month because a that time that was the amount of minimum wages prescribed under the law. Mr. Shafaat Hussain does not as, indeed, he cannot contest this position. The legal heirs of the deceased are, therefore, entitled to receive compensation amounting to Rs.7,30,428 as follows:‑‑

(a) Income at the rate of Rs.767 per month for the period of 7 years from July, 1985 to 1st July, 1992 Rs.64,428

13. (b), Income for the remaining period of 37 years at the rate of Rs.1,500 per month Rs.6,66,000

(c) Increment at the rate of 20% of Rs.7,30,428 Rs.1,46,085

14. Total Rs.8.76.513

(d) Deduction on account of personal expenses of the deceased equal 1 /6th of gross income Rs.1,46,085

15. Net income Rs.7,30,428

16. They are also entitled to costs and interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 14% p.a. from the date of the suit till payment. The suit is, therefore, decreed accordingly.

17. The defendants shall deposit the decretal amount with the Nazir of this Court who will dispose of the same in the following manner:‑‑

(1) Mst. Sabiha Riffat Naz (widow) 50 %

(2) Salman Shahzad !

(3) Miss Najamus Sahar ! The balance of 50% of the compensation be divided equally among these legal heirs.

(4) Miss Shamim Afshan !

(5) Miss Sadia !

18. The legal heirs mentioned at Serial Nos.2 to 5 above being minors, their shares will be deposited by the Nazir in Defence Saving Certificates.

19. A. A./S‑61 /K Suit decreed.