M/s. KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus BEGUM AYESHA
AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑ This High Court Appeal is directed against the judgment/decree dated 26‑5‑1985, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No.336 of 83 decreeing the suit of the respondents in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/‑ (Rs. four lacs only) as follows:‑
"1. Begum Ayesha widow of Saqib Alvi Rs.1,00,000/‑
2. Aliya Farheen d/o Saqib Alvi Rs.1,00,000/‑
3. Amin Alvi son of Saqib Alvi Rs.2;00,000/‑" arising out of fatal accident in which respondent No.1 husband and respondents Nos.2 and 3 s father Sqib Alvi was killed.
The brief facts are that deceased was driving his far on the National Highway near Mehar Cinema on ` 16‑f 2‑02 when Bus No.850‑532, belonging to appellant No.1 and driven by respondent No.6 at about 6.00 p.m. hit the car of the deceased. The other occupant of car Pervaiz also died and other two occupants received injuries. In the plaint it was alleged that respondent No.6 was driving the bus rashly and negligently at a fast speed. The above suit was resisted by the appellants. Respondents 4 and 5 parents of the deceased relinquished their claim in favour of respondents 1 to 3.
3. The respondents in support of the claim examined P.W.1 Abdul Aziz, P.W.2 Abdul Hafiz, P.W.3. Muhammad Wajihufah Alvi, father of the deceased, P.WA Ayesha AM (respondent No.1) P.W.5 Shoaib Hameed who was Medico‑Legal Officer posted at Jinnah Hospital on 16‑12‑1982, who attended the deceased and issued Exh.8 indicating grievous injury and stating that the deceased had already died because of the injuries, P.W.6 Dr. Khalil Ansari who was also posted at the relevant time at the Jinnah Post‑Graduate Medical Centre and had attended the deceased and issued Exh.7 certifying the death at 8‑20 p.m. He also reported the matter to the Police, P.W.7 Muhammad Shafi, Sub‑Inspector Air Port Police Station, who received the telephonic message from P.W. Khalil Ansari aboo the accident and the bus number etc., and recorded F.I.R. (Ex.21) and also prepared the plan of the place of incident Ex.34.
Appellants examined D.W.1 Muhammad Shaft Duty Officer at K.T.C. Landhi Depot on 16‑12‑1982, D.W.2. Muhammad Masood Siddiqui, who was Traffic Manager on the above date at the Landhi Depot and D.W.3 Iqbal Ahmed an Ex‑partner of the deceased in the construction business.
The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties passed the above ' decree. The appellants being aggrieved by the above judgment/decree have filed the present appeal.
4. In support of the above appeal Mr. Talmiz Burney, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge while computing the quantum of damages has not taken into consideration the losses, which the deceased might have suffered in the construction business on account of slump in the said business. He has also submitted that the basis of the calculations of the damages is not also sound. We are unable to agree with the above submissions. The learned Single Judge has based his calculations of the quantum of damages on the basis of the assessment order for the year 1981‑82 which showed that the deceased was assessed at an income of Rs.25,000/ for the year 1981‑82. At the time of the death of the deceased his age was only 31 years as he was born on 1‑10‑1951. The learned Single Judge in para 11 of the judgment has given the basis on which the amount of damages was calculated. It may be advantageous to reproduce the same which reads as follows:‑
"Since he was earning Rs.25,000/‑ per year at the time of his death I would consider it reasonable to expect that he should be making at least the same amount for another four years thereafter and in the next five years he could be easily earning Rs.30,000/‑ per year and in the next ten years thereafter he could very well be earning about Rs.36,000/‑ per year and in the next ten years thereafter his income could have risen to Rs.42,000/‑ per year and during the last five years of his expected life he should be easily earning about Rs.48,000/‑ per year."
5. There cannot be any denial of the fact that there could not have been the actual figure of earning for the years subsequent to the death of the deceased. The learned Single Judge has made the last assessment order of the Income‑tax Department as the basis for gradually increasing the income with the passage of time which is the normal conduct in human life. It cannot be ruled out that the deceased was earning much more than what was disclosed by him in the income tax return. The learned Single Judge has given proper allowance for the losses in para.13 of the judgment by deducting a sum of Rs.1,50,000/‑ from Rs.5,50,000/ which was the figure calculated on the basis of above‑quoted para.11, though there was no evidence on record or any other material to indicate that the deceased might have suffered any losses. In a fatal accident case the damages are to be assessed partly on the basis of the proved facts and partly on the basis of expectation. The learned Single Judge on the basis of the evidence on record has assumed 65 years as the span of life of the deceased, which appears to be correct" in view of the evidence brought on record to indicare long ages in the family of the deceased. This fact was not disputed even by the learned counsel for the appellants, nor the learned counsel for the appellants was able to show that the findings on the other questions are in any way contrary to the evidence on record.
The factum of rash and negligent driving has been proved by sufficient evidence.
The appeal has no merits and, therefore, it is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.
These are the reasons in pursuance of a short order of even date.
AA./K‑65/K Appeal dismissed.