BAKHT NASIR Versus Messrs JAMES FINLAY P.L.C

This is a suit under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1885, wherein a compensation for $ 52573752 is claimed.

2. Case of the plaintiffs is that deceased Muhammad Iqbal was their son. He was employed as Seaman with defendant .No.2 on their vessel m.v.Ninemi flying a Greek Flag with effect from 27‑8‑1984. On 15‑12‑1984 while the said deceased was on board, the said vessel was hit in the engine room by a missile whilst at sea in the Arabian Gulf, as a result of which Muhammad Iqbal died. It is alleged that the death of the deceased was due to the wrongful act, neglect or default of Master of the vessel. The deceased used to pay his entire monthly income to the plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 who are his parents and had nominated the plaintiff No.1 as his nominee. Defendants Nos.4 and 5 are the wife and daughter of the deceased. It is further alleged that at the time of his death the deceased was indebted to the extent of Rs.60,000 to the plaintiffs and to the extent of Rs.16,000 to one of his friends Mumtaz. Defendants Nos.4 and 5 have filed a written statement in which they have admitted the relationship of the plaintiff with the deceased and his being employed on the ship and his having been killed by the missile that had hit the said vessel on the relevant date. It is however, denied that the deceased used to give his entire income or any part to the plaintiffs. It was alleged that the plaintiff No.1 was enjoying good health and was earning his livelihood himself. The defendants Nos.4 and 5 have further stated that they being the widow and the daughter of the deceased are entitled to the compensation which defendant No.2 was paying to them but this suit has been filed by the plaintiffs with ulterior motive to deprive them of the said compensation.

3. Defendant No.1 have also filed written statement wherein they have stated that they are correspondents of U.K. Mutual Steamship Assurance Association (Bermuda) Limited, London. They have denied that they had anything to do with the defendant No.2 who were the owners of the ship. They however, admitted that Muhammad Iqbal was employed on the ship and had died on account of an air attack in South of Iran's Kharag Island. They denied that the death was due to the wrongful act, neglect or default of defendant No3 or that defendant No.3 had any personal liability to pay claim. Defendant No.1 has further stated that being the correspondents of the owner's Protection and Indemnity Club they were instructed by their principals to use their good offices to disburse amongst the next‑of‑kins of the deceased a sum of Rs.1,62,973.95 which was equivalent of U.S. $ 10,260 being the amount of death compensation payable in respect of deceased Muhammad Iqbal by the defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 are thus ready and willing to pay the said sum of Rs.1,62,973.95 in frill and final settlement of all claims en respect of the death of the deceased.

Defendant No.2 also filed written statement to the same effect.

On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:‑

(1) Whether this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the defendant No.2?

(2) Whether the defendant No.1 have personal liability for the plaintiffs' claim and whether they are liable to be struck off from the plaint as unnecessary party after payment into Court the sum of Rs.1,62,973.95?

(3) Whether the death of deceased Muhammad Iqbal was caused by any negligence on the part of the defendant No.2?

(4) What was the monthly income of the deceased Muhammad Iqbal at the time of his death?

(5) Whether the plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 were totally dependent on the income of the deceased Muhammad Iqbal or whether, the plaintiff No.1, earns or has. been earning his own livelihood being still in a fit state of health?

(6) What is the extent of loss if any suffered by the plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2?

(7) What is the effect of the compromise application between the defendant No.1 and the defendants Nos.3 and 4 and payment into the Court of Rs.1,62,973.95 by the defendant No.1?

(8) Whether the defendants Nos.4 and 5 totally banked upon the earnings of deceased Muhammad Iqbal for their sustenance?

(9) Whether the defendant No.4, is entitled to the amount of dower fixed of 10 tolas of gold bullion as the first charge on deceased's assets?

(10) Whether the defendants Nos.4 and 5 are separately, independently and severally entitled to their respective shares in the amount of compensation in accordance with the prescribed ratio and proportions of their respective shares under the tenets of Shariah relating to the inheritance?

(11) What should the decree be?

ISSUE NO.1.

It is admitted that the accident had taken place out of the jurisdiction of this Court. It is also admitted that defendant No.2 is resident of a place which is outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Even the ship was not at Karachi when this quit was filed and therefore, obviously this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Reference was made by Mr. Muhammad Sharif Khattak the Advocate for the plaintiffs to sections 19 and 20, of C.P.C.. Section 19, C.P.C. does not help the plaintiffs because admittedly the wrong was not done within the local limits of the :urisdiction of this Court. Similarly the defendant No.2 also does not reside within the jurisdiction of this Court. Even section 20 of C.P.C. would not be of any help' to the plaintiffs as the leave of the Court is not taken as required by clause (b) of section 20, C.P.C.

4. 1, therefore, hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

5. ISSUES NOS.2 TO 11.

In view of the findings on Issue No.1 it is not necessary to give any finding on the remaining issues.

However, defendant No.1 has deposited a sum of Rs.1,62,973.95 in the Court and has requested that the same be disbursed amongst the heirs of the deceased in full and final settlement of their claim on account of the death of the deceased. The relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants Nos.4 and 5 and the deceased is admitted. No doubt according to Greek Law, the plaintiffs i.e. father and the mother, are not entitled to any compensation but since the deceased was a Muslim and Pakistani National therefore, the plaintiffs are also entitled to their shares being the parents of the deceased. 1, therefore, direct that the amount of Rs.1,62,973.95 be distributed amongst the heirs of the deceased according to their respective shares under the Muslim Personal Law. It is admitted by the counsel for the parties that the defendants Mst.Hamida and Baby Nazia are entitled to Rs.1,08:696 as already ordered by this Court dated (sic)‑. Hence the said amount be paid to them after deducting the amount of Rs.15,000) which has already been withdrawn by them. The balance of the amount be paid to the plaintiffs. Order accordingly. The suit stands disposed of.

H.B.T./B‑68/K Order accordingly.