Mst. KHATOON Versus Haji GHULAM MOHIUDDIN

This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,10,000.

2. Case of the plaintiffs is that they are minor daughters of deceased Mst. Habiban who died in a traffic accident on 2‑6‑1981 at the age of 55 years. Her death was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Mini Bus No. 829‑658 by defendant No. 2 Muhammad Ramzan. The said mini bus was owned by defendant No. 1 Haji Ghulam Mohiuddin and the accident was caused by defendant No. 2 in the course of employment of defendant No. 1 and as such defendant No. 1 vicariously liable for the same. The said mini bus was insured with defendant No. 3. It is stated that the deceased used to do tailoring and embroidery work an. used to earn about Rs. 900 per month and used to maintain minor plaintiffs who have been deprived of the said earnings.

3. The defendants were served with summons. The defendant No. 2 has chosen to remain absent in spite of service, hence the suit was ordered to proceed ex parte against him. The defendant No. 1 filed written statement wherein he has denied that Mst. Habiban died due to an accident with Mini Bus No. 829‑658. He has also denied that defendant No. 2 was driving the said vehicle, while she was injured. He has further stated that the deceased was more than 60 years of age and was not contributing any maintenance towards minor plaintiffs. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed :‑‑

(1) Whether the death of Mst. Habiban was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Mini Bus No. 829‑658 by the defendant No. 2, the driver, employee of the defendant No. 1 the owner of the bus on 2‑6‑1981?

(2) Whether the defendants are liable to pay the compensation to the plaintiffs jointly and severally for the loss suffered by them?

(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to cost of the suit and interest at 15% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till recovery of the decretal amount?

(4) Decree?

4. The case was fixed for recording of evidence today. Advocate for the plaintiffs was present alongwith the plaintiff and her witnesses. Suit against defendant No. 3 was withdrawn by the plaintiff. There was no any appearance for defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 was already ex parte. Hence the plaintiff was called upon to file affidavits of herself and of her witnesses in evidence. Consequently affidavits of the Mst. Habiban, Mst.Khatoon and Mst. Marriam have been filed. These affidavits have gone unchallenged and unrebutted. From these affidavits it is proved to my satisfaction that Mst. Habiban was aged 55 years at the time of her death and that she died in an accident caused by rash and negligent driving of a mini bus driven by defendant No. 2 and owned by defendant No. 1 and that defendant No. 1 was the owner and employer of defendant No. 2 and therefore is vicariously liable for his tortious act. I am further satisfied that the health of Mst. Habiban and her family background was such that the expectancy of her life was upto the age of 65 years. Hence she would have maintenance these plaintiffs for 10 years. I am further satisfied that she used to earn Rs. 900 per month. After deducting her expenses she would have contributed at least Rs. 600 per month towards the maintenance of both these minors which comes Rs. 72,000 for 10 years. So far as the question of limitation is concerned it may be pointed out that the plaintiffs were minor at the time of the accident and therefore the period of limitation will start running after attaining their majority, hence the suit is within time. I therefore, decree plaintiffs suit for a sum of Rs. 72,000 against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. I also allow interest at the rate of 16% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till realization of the decretal amount. The costs shall be borne by the defendants. The decretal amount shall be apportioned equally between both the plaintiffs and will be paid to them separately.

H.B.T./K‑101/K

Suit decreed.