RAFIQUE JABIR vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and 2 others
This matter concerns a suit for damages filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, following the death of the plaintiff's son in a road traffic accident caused by a water tanker. The core legal question was the determination of the quantum of compensation payable to the beneficiaries (the parents) for the loss of their unmarried son, considering his potential future earnings and the expected duration of dependency. The court held that in the absence of controverting evidence from the ex parte defendants, the plaintiff's averments regarding the deceased's qualifications and potential career trajectory were accepted, though claims regarding current income from private tuitions were rejected. The court established that for an unmarried victim, it is reasonable to expect them to contribute half of their future earnings to their parents. Applying a multiplier approach, the court calculated the dependency period by deducting the years the deceased would have spent in further education and accounting for future family obligations. The suit was decreed for Rs. 4,68,000, representing the calculated loss of dependency.
- What is the reasonable proportion of an unmarried victim's earnings that can be expected to be contributed to their parents in a fatal accident claim?
- How should the period of dependency be calculated when the deceased was a student expected to pursue higher education?
- Can a court accept uncontroverted averments in an ex parte suit regarding the potential future earnings of a deceased victim?
- Fatal Accidents Act 1855
- Order XXIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
1. ' This is a suit for recovery in the sum of Rs,5,50,000 under the Fatal Accidents Act. The suit against the defendant No,1 already stands dismissed as withdrawn with the consent of Mr.K.M. Nadeem, AA.-G., as per order dated 7-10-1992 passed on an application under Order XXIII, R.1, C.P.C. The claim, however, remains against the defendants Nos, 2 and 3. Defendant No, 2 is alleged to be the owner of the Water Tanker No,822-959 whereas the defendant No,3 was its driver.
2. ' On facts, the referred water tanker, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against motor- cycle bearing No,KAC-7040 near Nipa Chewk on the University Road, Karachi, on 24-10-1987, as a result whereof, amongst others, Hasnain Shahzad, aged 22 years, son of the plaintiff suffered untimely death. The beneficiaries are the plaintiff, father of the deceased, and Mst. Razia Khatoon his mother. The deceased was unmarried and at the time had passed his B.Com. Final examination from Premier College, Karachi, with flying colours and was likely to take admission in the course of Master in Business Administration in the Institute of Business Administration. It is also alleged that due to his academic qualifications the deceased was rendering private tuitions and earning about 1,000 to 1,200 per month. Upon qualification as an MBA his expected earnings are claimed to be around Rs,6,000 to Rs,8,000 per month.
3. ' The defendants Nos,2 and 3 in the suit have already been declared to be ex parte as per order dated 2-2-1992. In addition to the plaint, the plaintiff has submitted his own affidavit-in-ex parte proof together with photostat copies of the National Identity Cards of his wife and himself, of the death certificate of the deceased from the Abbasi Shaheed Hospital and of the FIR from Gulshan- e-Iqbal, Police Station, Karachi. Affidavits of Saeed Ahmad Khan and Farooque, the first an eye- witness of the incident and the second a student of the deceased, have also been filed.
4. ' In the state of record, the averments made in the plaint and in the affidavits remaining uncontroverted are to be accepted except to the extent such may not be relied upon in the absence of satisfactory supporting material.
5. ' Assuming average spans of life for the deceased and the beneficiaries at 70 years the beneficiaries could have been maintained by the deceased for a period of 18 years, the younger of the beneficiaries, mother of the deceased, being 52 years of age. I am not inclined to accept the averments regarding private tuitions, allegedly, imparted by the deceased. However, being a qualified B.Com. And anticipating to be an MBA the minimum income of Rs,6,000 per month for the deceased can be reasonable and is accepted. No intervening advancements in life are, however, claimed apparently because such would be largely cancelled on account of the deceased marrying in due course of time and supporting a family of his own, which are negative factors respecting the possible benefits accruable to the beneficiaries. At the same time, for about a period of 5 years the deceased could have been expected to be undergoing education himself and not only no income would have accrued during such period but necessary expenses would also have been incurred. These again are negative factoRs, An unmarried victim of a fatal accident can reasonably be expected to have provided sustenance to his father and mother to the extent of half of his earnings. (See Kandan v. Hayat Services (Pak.) Ltd., 1988 CLC 525 and Shah Jehan Begum v. Govt. Of Sindh, 1988 CLC 2325). Therefore, the expected period of benefit being (18 years minus 5 years) 13 years the benefits @ Rs,3000 p.m. Whithin the entitlement of the beneficiaries should have been Rs,36,000 per annum, bringing up a total entitlement in the sum of Rs,4,68,000 for which amount the claim is decreed together with costs of the suit. accordingly.