' AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, J.---This High Court Appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 27th November, 2006, followed by Decree, dated 18th December, 2006, passed in Suit No,1132 of 2003, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court (on Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court), whereby the following prayers of the plaintiffs stand allowed:-- "(a) A decree in the sum of Rs,1,22,54,000 against the defendants jointly and severally to pay the said sum of damages/ compensation to the plaintiff or any other amount this Honourable Court may deem fit in circumstances of the case.
(b) Profit/mark-up at the rate of 21% per annum on the amount claimed in clause (a) above from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of realization of the decretal amount which the plaintiff would have earned had the defendants paid the said amount.
(c) Cost of the suit may be awarded to the plaintiff.
(d) Any other relief or reliefs that this Honourable Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances of the case be granted."
(2) The details/statement of the claim so made are as under:-
(i) Average life span in Pakistan in view of 70 Years the preponderance of judicial pronouncements.
(ii) Age of the deceased at the time of 35 years accident.
(iii) Loss ' of pecuniary benefits to the 35 years beneficiaries. (70-35)
(iv) The deceased in question was Electrician Rs,1,62,000 and was operating an Electric Shop and earning a sum of Rs,450 per day on average and thus was earning a sum of (450 x 30) = 13, 500 per month and the annual income on this basis comes to (13,500 x 12)
(v) The above income average would have Rs,3,24,000 continued for two years and as such the loss of pecuniary benefits for two years comes to.(1,62,000 x 2)
(vi) The deceased was expected to supplement Rs,79,20,000 his income by setting up a Electric Decoration Shop in addition to above income by enlarging his scope of work and would have started doing this as per his plan after two years so the income for the remaining 33 years would be calculated on the basis of enlarged/supplemented income which was expected to be Rs,20,000 per month on average. [20,000 x 12 x 33]
(vii) The aggregate loss of pecuniary benefit Rs,82,44,000 for over all 35 years comes to by adding v and vi [supra] 3,24,000 + 79,20,000]
(viii) 20% increment chances on the aggregate Rs,16,48,800 income of over all years [82,44,000 +5]
(ix) The gross loss of pecuniary benefits may Rs,98,92,800 be obtained by adding aggregate loss and chances of increment vide (vi + vii) [82,44,00 + 16,48,000] LESS:
(x) Personal expenses at 1/6th [98,92,800 +6] Rs,16,48,800
(xi) Net Loss of pecuniary benefits [98,92,800 Rs,82,44,000 - 16,48,800] Further Add:
(a) Rs,10,00,000 for loss of expectation to Rs,10,00,000 raise generation and expected monetary benefit from the child/children owing to untimely death of the deceased inquestion.
(b) Damages under the head of Consortium Rs,10,00,000 for the loss of association of the deceased in question by the spouse/widow.
(c) Punitive and exemplary damages. Rs,10,00,000
(d) Rs,500,000 to the plaintiff for Rs,10,00,000 compensating the loss and deprivation which he will experience in the shape of distress and disappointments in future life without their young son who could have been a further support to him in addition to rendering pecuniary assistance.
(e) Funeral expenses: Rs,10,000 Rs,40,10,000
(xi) Total loss of pecuniary benefits: Rs,1,22,54,000 [82,44,000 + 40,10,000]
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned D.A.-G. Went on requesting for adjournment of hearing of this High Court Appeal and ultimately learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the same; vide Order, dated 6-11-2008, last chance was afforded to learned D.A.-G. To proceed with the High Court Appeal and hearing was set-down for 12-11-2008 when on the said date also learned D.A.-G. One again prayed for grant of further adjournment for the purpose of hearing of this appeal, which was again opposed to by learned counsel for the respondent; such request on the part of the learned D.A.-G.
Was rejected; arguments were heard and vide a short order, dated 12-11-2008, this High Court appeal was dismissed in limine with costs; following are the reasons for the same.
5. Deceased Javed Akhtar Khan, aged about 35 years died on 24-6-2003, as a result of rash and negligent driving at the hands of appellant No,2, Munawar Khan, who was employee of Ministry of Health, Government of Pakistan; deceased left behind him the following persons as his legal heirs:- -
(i) Plaintiff Akhtar Ali Father
(ii) Mst. Shazia Javed Widow ' Deceased suffered fatal injuries as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the truck at the hands of defendant/respondent No,2 on 30-5-2003, and was recently married with Shazia, aged about 29 years, on 16-2-2002 and was issue-less and she claimed the above stated damages/compensation under the provisions of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, for the benefit of plaintiff Akhtar Ali, father of the deceased, and for herself viz. Widow of the deceased.
6. Defendant/appellant No,1 was owner of the truck bearing Registration No,GP-2187, which was assigned to the Health Office (H.O.), Central Government Servants' Colony, 48-B, Pakistan Secretariat, Karachi, for furtherance of the work of the defendant No,1 and to perform the transportation services (on behalf of defendant No,l. Defendant No,2), thus was servant/employee/driver of defendant No,1 and was driving the said truck at the time of the accident, which proved fatal, resulting into death of two motorcyclists, namely the said Javed Akhtar Khan (and Saleem Ahmed) owing to his negligent operation of the said truck. Such information is based on police record and the truck was impounded by. The North Nazimabad Police Station after occurrence of the said incident and was subsequently released to the representative of the defendant/appellant 1 on superdginama', when the representative of the said appellant specifically pleaded that the said truck was owned by the Central Government. So also the police officials concerned got it verified that the said truck was owned by defendant/appellant No,1 and further that it was being driven by defendant/appellant No,2 in his capacity of being a driver, employed by defendant/appellant No, 1.
7. It is specifically pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent that the defendant No,2, while driving the said truck on main Shershah Soori Road, while on his way from Nazimabad towards Board Office via Overhead Bridge of Nazimabad No,7 and when reached on the descending portion of the said bridge, he drove/operated the said truck in a such a rash and negligent/reckless manner that the truck dashed against, and knocked down four stationary motor cycles bearing Nos. HDH-9757, MPS-1732, FDI-793 and KCI-6046 on their respective rear portions, which motorcycles were in stationary position, ahead of the truck (towards which the said truck was being driven by the defendant appellant No,2) and the motorcyclists were awaiting for the electrical signals to allow them to driver further towards the Board Office; consequently, as an impact of collision, and owing to excessive high speed of the said truck, the motorcyclists, namely, Saleem Ahmed, Ali Asghar, Sohail and the said deceased Javed Akhtar respectively, suffered severe injuries on their respective bodies and were immediately taken to the closely available private hospitals/clinics for treatment; as Saleem Ahmed and Javed Akhtar had suffered fatal injuries, Saleem Ahmed expired in the Civil Hospital, on 2-6-2003 while Javed Akhtar (of this case) expired in Abbasi Shaheed hospital on 24- 6-2003 after having remained in critical condition. The said offence was reported to Police Station North Nazimabad and defendant/appellant No,2 was booked for such offence of rash and negligent driving (resulting into the death of aforesaid two motorcyclists and causing injuries to other two motorcyclists, namely, Sohail and Ali Asghar) and also for causing damage to their respective motor-cycles. The police impounded the said truck and defendant/appellant No,2 was also arrested.
8. The plaintiff/respondent specifically pleaded that death of deceased Javed Akhtar Khan was caused on account of negligence, wrongful act and default on the part of the defendant No,2, during the course of his employment of defendant No,1 and, as such, the defendant No,1 is vicariously liable for payment of compensation to the plaintiff and another legal heir of the said deceased, and the defendants/appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the plaintiff and to another legal heir, and further that the deceased was young man of 35 years having a good health and used to care much for the plaintiff and wanted to see his legal heirs to have prosperous state of life and could have survived up to the age of 70 years in view of the long life span in his family pedigree, advancement in medical facilities, availability of medical treatment and good climate of the area from where he originally came and, therefore, the plaintiff and widow of the deceased expected pecuniary benefits to the extent of Rs,1,22,54,000 as deceased was a very skilled Electrician and was operating Electric Workshop, and owing to his fair dealing, honesty and good contacts, deceased Javed Akhtar Khan was commanding quite a good number of customers/clients for his services and was conveniently earning Rs,400 to Rs,500 per day; he was hard worker and a promising person, planned to enlarge his business and area of work, and wanted to set up a workshop for electric decoration for the wedding ceremonies and other functions, and could have materialized his planning within a few months and would have also setup a workshop as intended by him; thus deceased would have supplemented his income almost to the extent of double of that being earned by him, (as to what he was earning at the time of his death) and thereby the deceased could have supported the plaintiff and the other legal heir in a more befitting manner. So also, income of the deceased would have increased with the passage of time and as such, ari increment at the rate of 20% per annum can safely be assumed.
9. The plaintiff further asserted that he stood deprived of his caretaker and supporter, who could have supported him in his old age at the time of distress in addition to pecuniary benefits and, as such, due to loss of the support of young son, the plaintiff has been deserted for all purposes and for which loss he claims Rs,10 lacs in addition to the damages for the aforesaid pecuniary loss.
10. The widow was still issueless at the time of death of deceased Javed Akhtar Khan and there was every likelihood that she may have given birth to a child or children in future who would have planned support to her but due to the tragic death of the deceased in question this very hope of raising generation and legitimate expectation of monetary benefit from the children had also been lost and she assessed a loss of Rs,1 million on average under this head of damage; and she also stood deprived of association and company of her husband when she was more in need of the same owing to her heath and age circumstances and, as such, she is being haunted by feeling of loneliness and, therefore, she claims a sum of Rs,5 lacs under the head of "Consortium" for such loss of association and feeling of deprivation as well as loneliness, due to this sudden death of her husband, for which compensatory pecuniary loss of Rs,10 lacs is calculated by her and further claim of Rs,10,000 towards the funeral expenses for the deceased.
11. The said suit of the plaintiff/respondent proceeded before learned single Judge of this Court in its Original Side Jurisdiction, defendant No,1 filed written statement and that defendant No,2 is a skilled Heavy Traffic Vehicle License Holder driver of Peoples Work Department, working in the Directorate of Central Health Establishment, Karachi, and was driving the garbage truck diligently, cautiously and when the said truck was running on the downside of the bridge, brakes of the truck could not work and, therefore, the truck could not perfectly stop and consequently hit the motorcyclists, in consequence of the same two injured persons died.
12. Plaintiff Akhtar Ali Khan was examined along with his witness Abdul Ghafoor, and Investigation Officer of the incident also produced the relevant documents in evidence. One Ali Asghar was also examined in support of the case of plaintiff. On behalf of the defendants, Mr. Naseem Javed, the then Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Health at Islamabad, filed her affidavit-in-evidence.
13. Learned single Judge heard learned counsel for the parties and decreed the suit of the plaintiff with the following observations:-- "ISSUE NO.1: ' Defendants in his affidavit in evidence not disputed about the accident however stated that the accident caused due failure of the brakes. The plaintiff's witness in evidence categorically stated that on 30-5-2003 defendant No,2 while driving the truck bearing No,GP-2187 on the main Sher Shah Soori Road on his way from Nazimabad towards Board Office via overhead bridge of Nazimabad No,7 when reached on the descending portion of the said bridge drew the said truck in such a rash, negligent and reckless manner and knocked down four stationary cycles bearing Nos.
HDH-9757, MPS-1732, FI-793 and KCI-6046 on their rear portion which were lying stopped ahead on the said truck waiting for the Board Office Signal to open as the same was closed. Witness further stated that due to impact of collision, owing to excessively high speed motor-cyclists namely Saleem Javed, Ali Asghar, Sohail and Javed Akhtar respectively got severe injuries on their bodies and these victims were evacuated to closely situated private hospitals for treatment. Out of four persons Saleem Ahmed and Javed Akhtar were fatally injured and motor-cyclists Saleem Ahmed died in Civil Hospital and Javed Akhtar expired in Abbasi Shaheed Hospital on 24-6-2003 after remaining in critical condition. The plaintiff's witness was cross-examined by the defendants but evidence of the plaintiff's witness remained unshaken and during cross- examination even it was not suggested that the driver of the truck was not driving vehicles rashly, negligently. One Ali Asghar also filed affidavit in evidence as eye-witness stated that the accident was caused by the defendant No,2 who was driving the truck carelessly, rashly, and negligently hit the motor-cycle No,MPS-1732 and further dashed three motor-cycles ahead of him which was also in stationary condition due to red traffic signal. The evidence of the said witness remained unchallenged. On 'behalf of the defendant Mrs. Naseem Javed, Dy. Secretary, Ministry of Health, filed affidavit in evidence and stated that defendant No,2 is a skilled license-holder driver and was driving garbage truck diligently, cautiously as the brakes of the truck could not work he slow down the truck by changing gear but due to running on the down side of the bridge, the said truck could not perfectly stop and hit the injured as a result two persons received injuries in the leg and pelvic bones as per x-ray report.
' Under section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965, any person who drives or causes or allow to be driven in any public place a vehicle while the vehicle has any defect which could have discovered by exercise of ordinary course which calculated to render the driving of the vehicles as a source of danger to persons and vehicle using such place, shall be punishable for imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine. The defendant also failed to produce fitness certificate that the truck in question was fit to ply on road as required under section 3(ii) of the Prevention of Road Accidents Ordinance, 1978.
' The defendant has not only failed to examine defendant No,2, truck driver, but further failed to produce any evidence that they were properly maintaining the truck in question and accident was caused due to sudden failure of the brake. The defendant in discharge of his duties has to operate numbers garbage truck to ply on roads daily and it is their duty that before allowing any vehicle to leave station not only check engine oil, brake oil, etc. But also to satisfy that the same is fit for plying on road, as any vehicle on road not fit for plying can endanger the life of citizen. The duty to take reasonable care increases manifold when State engaged in the business either himself or through corporation or companies owned by the State as under Article 9 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan it is the duty of the State not to deprive the life of a person except in accordance with law.
' The issue is answered in affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2: ' In view of my findings on Issue No,1, it is proved that the accident has been caused due to negligence, diligent and wrongful act of the defendant No,2. The defendant No,1 not denied that the accident was caused by the defendant No,2 while discharging his duties under his employment, therefore, defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
ISSUE NO.3: ' The question now remains is for what amount plaintiff is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
The plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs,1,22,54,000 as damages as assessed by him. It is by now settled that average life span in Pakistan is about 70 years and at the time of his death deceased was 35 years of age. The deceased who was Electrician by profession and was operating Electric Shop and after taking into consideration evidence available on record. I assessed the claim of the plaintiff .As under:--
(i) Average life span in Pakistan in view of 70 Years the preponderance of judicial pronouncements.
(ii) Age of the deceased at the time of 35years accident.
(iii) Loss of pecuniary benefits to the 35 years beneficiaries. (70-35)
(iv) The deceased in question was. Electrician Rs,1,08,000 and was operating an Electric Shop and earning a sum of Rs,450 per day on average which had not been questioned but for the purpose of quantum, we can take the reasonable earning capacity of a skilled electrician at Rs,300 to 350 and hence on average a sum of Rs,9000 per month and the annual income on this basis comes to (9000 x 12).
(v) The aggregate loss of pecuniary benefit Rs,37,80,000 for over all 35 years comes [1,08,000 x 35] ADD:
(vi) 20% increment chances on the aggregate Rs,7,56,000 income of over all yea.Rs [37,80,000 5]
(vii) The gross loss of pecuniary benefits may Rs,45,36,000 be obtained by adding aggregate loss and chances of increment [7,80,000] LESS:
(viii) Personal expenses at 1/6th [45,36,000 - Rs,37,80,000 7,56,000] Further Add:
(a) Funeral expenses: Rs,10,000
(ix) Total Loss of pecuniary benefits: Rs,37,90,000 [7,80,000 + 10,000] Accordingly, plaintiff suit is decreed in the sum of Rs,37,90,000 with interests at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of decree till its realization. The decree shall be satisfied within a period of days."
14. The judgment, dated 18th December, 2006, was followed by the decree. Hence, this High Court Appeal.
15. Learned single Judge recorded observation in the impugned judgment that though the witness of the plaintiff were cross-examined by the defendants, yet their evidence remained un-shaken and "even it was not suggested that the driver of the truck was not driving vehicle rashly, negligently"; further that one Asghar Ali deposed before the learned trial Court that he witnessed the incident, which was caused by defendant/ appellant No,2, while driving the truck carelessly, rashly and negligently and thereby hit the Motorcycle No,MPS-1732 at its backside and also the truck dashed against three other motor-cycles, which were ahead of the truck and while the motor-cycles were in stationary condition (due to electrical traffic signal). Evidence of the said witness of the plaintiff also proved "unchallenged".
16. Witness, namely, Mrs. Naseem Javed, deposed before learned single Judge that the.
Defendant/appellant No,2 is a skilled license holder driver and was driving the garbage truck properly, but because the truck was driving towards the downside of the flyover bridge, it could not perfectly stop and instead hit the motor-cyclists, in consequence of which two deceased along with two motor-cyclists received injuries. Learned single Judge further observed that the defendants also failed to produce fitness certificate of the truck to prove that. The truck was in a fit condition to ply on the vehicular traffic road, as required under section 3(ii) of the Prevention of Road-Accidents Ordinance, 1978. So also, the defendants failed to examine the defendant No,2, viz., the truck driver, and further, they failed to produce any evidence that the truck was properly being maintained and that the incident in question took-place only for the reason that the brakes of the same suddenly proved failure. It was further observed by the learned single Judge that a number of the garbage trucks were being operated by the defendants/appellant No,1 and, therefore, it was their duty to have proved that before allowing any vehicle to leave the service station, not only the Engine Oil was properly checked, but that Brake Oil and all other necessary checks having been carried out; that trucks were found in fit condition to ply on the vehicle traffic road, otherwise, any vehicle not properly got checked can cause the accident and can endanger the lives of the citizens.
17. Learned single Judge further referred to Article 9 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to state that it is the duty of H State not to deprive the life of any person except in accordance with the relevant provisions of law.
18. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in the terms, as quoted herein above.
19. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff argued that the appellants intentionally and deliberately wanted to delay the payment towards the claim of the plaintiff/respondent and, therefore, did not file this appeal within the prescribed time limit and that it is a settled principle of law that Government cannot claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant and that litigant seeking condonation of delay must explain delay of each day, satisfactorily .
20. In Civil Appeal No,361/1993, reported as Federation of Pakistan v. Jamaluddin and others (1996 SCMR 727), Honourable Supreme Court recorded the following observations at page 745:-- "(14) The third appeal (C.M. 361/93) also does not merit any different fate. It is stated to be barred by 36 days and no good reason has been given by the appellants for condonation of delay. The ground taken in their application for condonation of delay is of routine type namely that "the matter remained in circulation for permission to file petition for leave to appeal before this Hon'ble Court" and that the time was consumed in office routine which was beyond the control of the appellants. Such a plea has never been accepted by this Court as a valid ground for condonation of delay. Refer Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pir Ahmad Khan (1981 SCMR 37) wherein it was held "The time said to have been spent during which the various authorities were examining the matter with a view to decide whether an appeal should or should not be filed cannot be excused. This Court has repeatedly laid down that so far as the limitation is concerned, the Government cannot claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant. In fact, the Government enjoys unusual facilities for the preparation and conduct of their cases and its resources are much larger than those passed by ordinary litigants. If in spite of these facilities the Government cannot comply with the requirement of the law of limitation, then it is for it to take steps to have that law changed". It is also settled law that the litigant seeking condonation of delay must explain the delay of each day. The excuse that the matter got delayed because of its having remained under examination at different departmental levels is not a proper and satisfactory explanation for the delay of 36 days. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of being limitation- barred."
21. So also, in Province of East Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid Darji and others (1970 SCMR 558), following observations were recorded by Honourable Supreme Court at page 562:-- "This Court has furthermore repeatedly pointed out that in an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act it is the duty of the party seeking condonation to explain each day, delay, and unless this is done, the delay should not be condoned particularly, where valuable rights have accrued to the other sides.
' This Court has also is several cases had occasion to point out that so far as limitation is concerned the Government cannot claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant, because, of the fact that the Government enjoys unusual facilities for the preparation and conduct of their cases and its resources are much larger. If in spite of these facilities the Government cannot comply with the requirement of the law of limitation, then it is for it to take steps to have that law changed and not to ask the Courts to give a different interpretation to its provisions. In this view of the matter, the High Court's decision in these two petitions in unexceptionable."
22. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the delay in filing the appeal occurred only for the reason that the Government counsel did not provide proper assistance towards the filing of the appeal and, therefore, the delay occurred.
23. In Saifullah Siddiqui v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. (1997 SCMR 26), Honourable Supreme Court recorded observations to the effect that any negligence on the part of the party's counsel would be binding on any such party and it was further held in Abdul Hamid and 3 others v.
Syed Abdul Qadir and others, (PLD 2001 SC 49) to the effect that party who knocks the door of the Court is expected to be diligent and vigilant to keep track of proceedings and not to wait for notice of the Court and further that failure of counsel to inform his client about proceedings of his case, such a matter was between the client and the counsel and benefit of the same could not be extended to the disadvantage of opposite party.
24. Learned counsel for the respondent also further placed reliance on the observations recorded in the following cases:--
(i) Karachi Transport Corporation v. Latifur Rehman (1993 SCMR 1149 [p. 1160] C.
(ii) Pakistan Steel Mills Corp. v. Nazir Hussain Shah (1990 CLC 515 [P. 519] A (DB).
(iii) Govt. Of Pakistan v. Ishrat Begum (1999 MLD Pt. II 768 [P.775].
(iv) Karachi Transport Corporation v. Qaiser Ali and others. (2000 CLC 121 [P.124].A
(v) Karachi Water and Sewerage Board v. Mairajuddin (2000 MLD 11 [P.116] 10, 11 & 12.
(vi) Punjab Road Transport Corp. v. Naziran Bibi (PLD 1983 SC 340) [P.341] A
(vii) Abdul Latif v. Faisalabad Development Authority (1988 MLD 2200 [11.22011A (viii)Chairman, Railway Board v. Nazir Ahmad (PLD 1988 Lahore 652) [P.6571.
(ix) Muhammad Akbar Khan v. Province of West Pakistan (PLD 1961 SC 17) [P.22] A
(x) Karachi Water and Sewerage Board v. Ageela Bano (2004 MLD 626)
(xi) The Asam and Meghalaya State Road Transport Corporation, Gauhati v. Abdul Razzak AIR 1988
(Gauh) 57 (DB)
(xii) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Jhami Kanhiyalal and others AIR 1987 (Rajasthan) 68 (xiii)State of Rajasthan v. Rameshwarlal and Munni Bai. 1986 AC 281 (P.283)
(xiv)The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v. Narain Shankar and another AIR 1980 SC 695 [P696] Para's-4
(xv) State of Haryana v. Smt. Darshana Devi and others AIR 1979 SC 856 [P. 857] Para-7 (xvi)N.K.V. Bros (P.) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Animal and others AIR 1980 SC 1354 [PP. 1354 & 1355] Para 3 & 5 (xvii)Messrs Concord of India Insurance Co. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and others AIR 1979 SC 1666 [P.1667] Para-1 and 2 (xviii) Firm Kaluram Sitaram v. The Dominion of India AIR 1954 Bombay 50 [P.54].
(xix)N.K. Doongaji and others v. Collector, Surguja and others AIR 1962 M.P. 139 [P.140]
(xx) The Trustee of Port Bombay v. The Premier Automobiles Ltd. And another AIR 1974 SC 923 ' He precisely argued the settled principle of law to the effect that Government Departments/Functionaries are not expected to raise frivolous pleas in an action brought by a citizen for recovery of his lawful claim, with the object to deny it or to prolong litigation in respect thereof and that such a practice is to be obstructed in the strong terms; further that the officials responsible for the same should be made accountable for their such un-called for and unjustified approach, particularly in the cases arising out of fatal accident, the approach of the Government of departments/functionaries should be humane and pragmatic and further that all efforts should be directed to ensure that an aggrieved person would get his reasonable admissible claim promptly without loss of time.
25. The evidence produced by the parties in the suit clearly proves that the plaintiff/respondent proved his case for award for the compensation/damages, as claimed by him and as detailed hereinabove. No defect is found in the judgment recorded by learned single Judge, nor the proceedings so taken bear any illegality therewith. The appellants were afforded full opportunity to defend themselves and having availed all such opportunities, they failed to disprove the case/claim of the plaintiff/respondent and, therefore, the suit was rightly decreed against the appellants.
26. There being no merit in this High Court Appeal, the same was dismissed in limine with costs vide short Order, dated 12th November, 2008; above are the reasons for the said short Order.