' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.---Brief facts of the case are that one Qari Muhammad Rafique predecessor-in-interest of the respondents while going towards Taj Oil Mills on 13-1-1987 at about 11-00 a.m. Riding on his Scooter bearing Registration No,5086-SLC when reached near Habib Bank H-Block, met an accident on account of current in the rainwater flowing from a WAPDA Pole and as a result died at the spot. On the same day he was medically examined. His medical report is on record as Exh.P/3. Respondents being his legal heirs filed a suit for Recovery of Rs,9,00,000 claiming Rs,3,750 per month as his prospective income per month for the next 20 years. The suit was contested by the petitioners by pleading that in fact Qari Muhammad Rafique slipped on account of rainwater, lost control of his Scooter and hit the Electric Pole because of which some vibration took place in the pole and some current might have flowed down, as a result of which he died.
Therefore, it was an accidental death and not because of negligence of the petitioners. After recording of evidence of the parties the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30-5- 1991 decreed the suit to the tune of Rs,1,50,000 treating prospective income of deceased as Rs,1,900 per month for the next 15 years. The petitioners challenged this decree, through an appeal, while, the respondents filed cross-objections and claimed Rs,9,00,000 as compensation. The learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 29-12-1992, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners, however, allowed the cross-objections and enhanced compensation to Rs,5,00,000 treating life expectancy of deceased of 15 years and monthly income of Rs,3,000. Both these judgments and decrees of the Courts below are being assailed through the instant Civil Revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that P.W.7 has stated in his cross-examination that net monthly income of the deceased was 1800/1900 rupees per month. With reference to P.W.8 it is submitted that one of the plaintiffs has changed the nature of occurrence from the one alleged in the plaint. It is next argued that the Courts below have based the income of deceased on presumptions without there being any positive evidence. He has also referred to some minor contradictions in the statement of witnesses.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgments of the learned appellate Court. However, points out that the calculation made by the learned District Judge is incorrect. If according to the rate and time assessed by the learned District Judge the amount is calculated, it comes to Rs,5,40,000 and not Rs,5,00,000, which needs to be corrected.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. There is no denying the fact that there are some minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses but they are not of much importance, which could render the judgments to be a nullity. It is established on record through the statement of the Doctor and Exh.P/3 (At this stage I have noted that on record only one page of Exh.P/3 is available, the other page is provided by the learned counsel for the petitioner after having been attested by him under his signatures) that death of Qari Muhammad Rafique had taken place on account of electrocution. It is also established on record that the said electrocution had taken place on a roadside in rainwater when a current was flowing from a pole erected by the petitioners. The contention that calculations made by the Courts below are based on presumptions is absolutely correct. In such-like case there cannot be any positive, evidence that a man would earn a certain amount over a period, it can only be presumed in the given circumstances that how much he may earn, therefore, such case can only be decided on presumption and not on evidence. However, presumption is to be gathered from the attending circumstances of the case. There is no denying the fact that deceased was feeding a family of 10 members and for feeding such a huge family an amount of Rs,3,000 presumed by the learned District Judge by no means can be said to be exaggerated or excessive.
No other material or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, I don't' find any reason to interfere in the judgment of the learned District Judge. Resultantly, this petition stands dismissed. However, before parting with the judgment a minor variation in the decree requires so far as calculation of the amount is concerned. The learned District Judge has calculated the amount of Rs,5,00,000 on the basis of a presumption that the deceased would have survived for 15 years and earned Rs,3,000 p.m. If this amount is calculated as such, it comes to Rs,5,40,000 therefore, the decree shall now be drawn for amount of Rs,5,40,000.