1. ' KHILJI AR1F HUSSAIN, J.---Brief facts to decide the appeal are that respondent No,1, who is minor, filed suit through his father/next friend for recovery of Rs,5,500,000 against the appellant and respondent No,2. It was alleged that on account of traffic accident on 19-12-2002 by coach, driven by Mir Hassan bearing registration No,JE-1273, owned by appellant and respondent No,2, respondent No,1 received injuries. The driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, resulting that A respondent No,1 had received serious traumatic injuries in his left leg, lower abdomen, left hip joint and fracture in elbow. The respondent No,1 was shifted to Jinnah Post Medical Centre (JPMC) for emergency treatment where he remained in hospital for two days, then on account of critical condition shifted to A.O. Clinic Nazimabad on 1-12-2002, and his left leg was amputated from the neck of the femur. The respondent No,1 was also undergone operation of left hip joint debridment of wound and multiple dressings thereafter shifted to Patel Hospital, he remained in hospital for seven months and undergone major surgical procedures pertaining to the affected areas subjected to skin grafting of the lower abdomen and both the ureters were implanted to colon, and he was also catheterized, discharged on 29-9-2001. Respondent No,1 became permanently disabled on account of traumatic injuries, filed suit for general and special damages. The appellant along with driver Mir Hassan filed written statement. In the written statement it was alleged that driver was driving vehicle and after dropping the passenger on the bus-stop driver hardly put vehicle in the second gear, then all of a sudden respondent No,1 (minor) came in front of the coach, on seeing the minor driver applied brake, vehicle was stopped as vehicle was already being slow but could not avoid accident, and minor was immediately lifted and removed to hospital, accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and unfortunate accident took place.
2. ' On the basis of pleadings, seven issues were framed including issue, whether driver (defendant No,3) was not rash and/or negligent in driving the vehicle and that appellant and respondent No,2 are responsible for the accident and are liable to pay any damages and compensation. After recording evidence, learned Judge decreed the suit against the appellant and respondent No,2 jointly and severally in the sum of Rs,8,00,000 with 14 per cent per annum interest from the date of decree till realization, the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree preferred this appeal.
3. ' Heard Mr. S. Nasir Hussain Jafri, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Nasir Maqsood, learned counsel for respondent No, 1.
4. ' Mr. S. Nasir Hussain Jafri, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that appellant was driver of the respondent No, 2 and was driving coach in very low speed but the respondent No,1 who is minor, came before coach all of a sudden resulting accident. It was argued by the learned advocate that respondent has not produced original document and produced only photocopies which was objected by him at the time of arguments. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, that no eye-witness of accident alleging that vehicle dragged the respondent No,1 had appeared in the witness-box, and accident was not caused due to the negligence of the appellant. It was further contended by the learned counsel that no evidence in respect of nature of the injuries was on record. Learned Single Judge committed error of law in decreeing the suit, in support of his contention learned counsel relied upon the cases of Sardar Khan Bahadut Khan v. Returning Officer Constituency LA-18, Poonch-2, Civil Judge, Hajira, AK & 2 others 2003 MLD 284, Muhammad Azam and 5 others v. Abdullah and 15 others, 1999 CLC 200, Syed Muhammad Saleem v. Ashfaq Ahmed Khan and another 1989 CLC 1883, Niamatullah Shah v.
5. Farmanullah and another, 1980 SCMR 953.
6. ' On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,1 argued that sufficient evidence was available on record on the basis of which decree was passed and the burden was upon the appellant/defendant to prove that all possible reasonable care has been taken but despite that accident could not be avoided. It was further contended by the learned advocate for respondent No,1, that the appellant was driving vehicle in a rash and negligent manner even after the accident coach could not stop and dragged respondent No,1 for about 200 yards along with the wheel of the coach.
7. ' We have taken into consideration respective arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the parties and perused the record.
8. ' From perusal of the record, it appears that on the day of accident Coach No,JE-1273 when reached near Qureshi Market dashed minor pedestrian/plaintiff and after dashing the minor plaintiff coach dragged the plaintiff for about a dozen feet ahead along with the wheel resulting, the respondent/plaintiff received traumatic injuries in his left leg, lower abdomen, left hip joint and fracture in elbow. P.W. Abdul Hameed who is eye-witness, in his statement, has stated that driver of the coach wrongfully dashed the minor pedestrian plaintiff in excessively high speed and continued to drag the minor pedestrian for about a dozen feet ahead along with the wheel of the coach. The statement of the plaintiff was not called in question by the appellant that immediately after accident the appellant driver stopped the bus/coach and not dragged the plaintiff/respondent for about a dozen feet ahead along with the wheel.
9. ' In the case of Federation of Pakistan v. Hafiza Malika Khatoon Begum and others 1996 SCMR 406, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-- "The plea of contributory negligence raises question of -fact which should be proved by the party alleging it. It should be established that the plaintiff had failed to take reasonable care for his safety."
10. In the case of Pakistan Seel Mills Corporation Ltd. Karachi and another v. Ehteshamuddin Qureshi 2005 SCMR 1392, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that"
11. "The general rule is that driver of heavy vehicle on the busy roads must take extra care and must not act in a manner which may be dangerous to life of others. The slightest carelessness of a driver of a heavy vehicle may badly disturb the traffic on the road and bring the serious consequence of a fatal accident. The high speed or fast driving is not only rash and negligent driving rather carelessness even at low speed may also constitute an act of negligence to hold the driver responsible for the damages."
12. In the case of Punjab Road Transport Board v. Abdul Wahid Usmani and others, PLD 1980 Lahore 584, it was held that:- "Driver of bus causing accident by negligent driving cannot be permitted to fall back upon contributory negligence of other party in order to avoid liability arising out of the accident."
13. ' In the case of Amul Ramchandra Gandhi v . Abhasbhai Kasambhai Diwan and others AIR 1979 Gujarat 14, it was held:-- "The principles which emerge on review of the authorities may be thus summarized: A Distinction must be necessarily drawn between children and adults when the question of contributory negligence arises, for a child cannot be expected to be as careful for his own safety as an adult'.
14. Where a child is of such an age as to be unable to fend for himself or to be .Naturally ignorant of danger, or where in doing an act which contributed to be the accident, he was only following the instincts natural to his age and the circumstances, he is not guilty of contributory negligence. A child should be found guilty of contributory negligence only if it is established as a matter of fact on the evidence on record that he is of such an age and understanding as reasonably to be expected to take precautions for his own safety and the blame for the accident could be necessarily attached to him. In cases of road accident, it must he borne in mind that a child is riot possessed of the road sense or the experience of elders. Even if it is transpired that he w's taught road discipline either at home or at school and that, therefore, if he had bestowed some thought, he would have realized that it was his duty to take reasonable care for his own safety, still a normal child would not he held culpable in view of this propensity to forget altogether what has been taught to him if something else uppermost in his mind. A normal child is always momentarily forgetful of the perils of crossing and walking on a road, regretfully thought, and under such circumstances, if he failed to notice even on oncoming vehicle and got hurt by it, he cannot be held guilty of contributory negligence. In such a case, the question of the duty of the driver of the vehicle must be examined with great precision and unless the driver in a position to show on establishment of primary facts that he was driving the vehicle in such a manner that he could have brought is to standstill in case of emergency and that the accident was inevitable or unavoidable, the inference of his negligence and his alone must be raised almost as a matter of course."
15. ' For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view, that the appellant, failed to bring on record any evidence that due care has been taken by the appellant while driving heavy vehicle on public road to a void accident.
16. ' Jurisprudence of compensation for motor accidents must develop in the direction of no-fault liability and the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in free D country in generous scales.
17. ' Road accident is one of the top killers in our country, especially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. Time has come when Court itself take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity. It has been noted that in fatal accident cases transporters managed to drag the matter for a considerable period of time in Court and sometime escape from their liability by adopting technical grounds. It is the time when Government must consider seriously no-fault liability by legislation. The party responsible for accident must deposit a particular amount in Court before permission to defend is granted to them so that widows, orphan can at least get their bread and butter from the said amount.
18. ' For the foregoing reasons, listed appeal has no merit and E accordingly dismissed.