' IJAZ AHMAD, J.---Sohail Ikram, Mst. Shagufta Sohail, Sufian Sohail and Seep Sohail, the father, mother, son and daughter, the plaintiffs-appellants, instituted a suit for recovery of Rs,200,000,00 regarding the serious injuries caused to them. The facts as pleaded in the plaint are that appellant No,1 sitting behind the steering wheel along with appellants Nos. 2 to 4 sitting in a car were on their way from Attock to Islamabad when a Land Cruiser owned by respondent No,1, driven by respondent No,2 while overtaking other vehicles approached from the wrong side and collided head-on with the appellants' car, As a result thereof, the appellants sustained numerous injuries on various parts of their bodies. The car was smashed. Respondent No,1 left his vehicle at the place of occurrence and fled away. The appellants filed the said suit claiming the following damages therein:- Appellant No.1 (i)Damages on account of termination of service. Rs.6,000,000 (ii)Expenses incurred on treatment.
(iii)Damages on account of pain and agony suffered from the injuries. Rs.1,000,000 (iv)Damages to the car. Rs.150,000 (v)Mental agony Rs.8,50,000 Appellant No.2 (i)Damages because of financial loss in business Rs.100,000 (ii)Damages on account of pain and agony suffered from the injuries. Rs. 400,000 (iii)Mental torture. Rs.500,000 Appellant No.3 (i)Damages for bearing the sufferance of injuries for the remaining 65 years of expected life.Rs.50,000,00 (ii)Mental and physical torture Rs.20,000,00 Appellant No.4 (i)Damages for fracture of vital parts. Rs.30,000,00 (ii)Mental torture. Rs.10,000,00 {{TABLE}}
2. The written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents disputing the claim of the appellants. They asserted that while respondent No,1 was overtaking a trailer another truck from behind smashed the land cruiser. Plaintiff No,1 appeared from the opposite direction. A head-on collision between the car and land cruiser was the result of the efforts of plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 to steer the car in opposite directions. The trial court framed issues. The parties led their respective evidence. The plaintiffs produced Iftikhar Ahmad, the Secretary, Beacon House Public School Islamabad to prove the loss sustained by Sufian Sohail due to the discontinuation of his studies.
Abdul Rashid P.W.2 stated that Sohail Ikraam was earning Rs,10,000 a month with a yearly increment of Rs,2,000 to 3,000. His service was terminated in 1995 because of his disability resulting from the accident. Dr. Ghias-ud-Din P.W.3 made statement about the injuries sustained and the treatment given to Sohail Ikraam. Dr. Babar Ali examined and treated Sufian Sohail, Sohail Ikraam and Shagufta Sohail. Sher Zaman ASI appeared as P.W.5 and Sohail Ikraam as P.W.6. He gave the account of incident and the details of damages sustained by him. In rebuttal the defendants appeared as D.W.1 and D.W.2. They attributed the cause of accident to a dash to their vehicle by a truck in the hind and to the misdirected efforts of plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 to move the car in opposite direction. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 4-9-2004 decreed the suit partly to the tune of Rs,500,000. Being dissatisfied, the appellants have filed instant RFA for enhancement of decreetal amount equal to original claim in the suit and also for awarding costs of suit including the counsel's fee i,e, Rs,15,000.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellant No,1 was a salaried person and his monthly, income was Rs,10,000 and his wife was running a store. By dint of the accident, the former had become unable to earn his livelihood and the latter's business had to be closed down; that the whole family had become destitute forced to lead a miserable and pathetic life; that all the members of the family sustained serious injuries and faced metal anguish; that the learned trial court has not taken into consideration these very facts while partly decreeing the suit; that the appellants had made out a case in their favour through evidence produced by them but the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence in its true perspective; that the rashness practiced by respondent No,2 in driving the vehicle and causing damages to the appellants stands established; that the grave occurrence would not have happened without respondents' rashness and negligence; that the appellants are entitled to recover damages for physical injuries and mental torture caused to them on account of the wrongful act committed by the respondents; that respondent No,1, the owner of the vehicle has employed respondent No,2, as a chauffer who is not proved to be possessing a valid driving license. Respondent No,1 is vicariously liable for the wrongful act of respondent No,2. Reliance is placed on 1992 MLD 1711 (Karachi) titled Mukhtiar Bequm v. Karachi Transport Corporation and another and PLD 1951 Sindh 24 titled Hyder and another v. Burmah Shell Oil Company of India, Ltd., and others; that the statements of P.Ws.3 and 4, Dr. Ghayas-ud-Din and Dr. Babar Ali fully corroborate that the appellants had sustained grave injuries on their persons and appellant No,1 had become disabled altogether due to fracture on his thigh. He cannot accomplish his errands and cannot move in society with same confidence as a normal person does and that the judgment passed and the decree drawn by the learned trial court has awarded the appellants, too paltry an amount of damages to heal their wounds and to recompense them. Relies on (1982 CLC 1081) titled "Muhammad Aziz Ullah Qureshi v. Iqbal Umar etc.", (1995 SCMR 446) titled 'Pakistan Railways through its General Manager v. Javed lqbal", v(1984 CLC 2830 (Karachi) titled "Muhammad Younus Khan and 3 others v. Karachi Road Transport Corporation and another" and (PLD 1951 Sindh 24) titled "Hyder and another v. Burmah Shell Oil Companu of India, Ltd. And others".
4. Vide order dated 18-6-2013, the respondents have already been proceeded against ex parte.
They have not even today entered appearance before the Court to substantiate their version.
However, the respondents had taken a stance in their written statement that the suit was not maintainable and when respondent No,2 was driving the Land Cruiser, a truck dashed it from the rear side as it tried to overtake it. Appellant No, I was perplexed. In order to save his car, he moved it to the wrong side of the road and the accident took place due to his own fault.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The family members have sustained the following injuries:-- Sohail Ikraam, plaintiff No,l.
(i) Fracture of Right femur.
(ii) Fracture of right acclabulum right side of pelvis.
(iii) Dislocation of hip point. Shaghuta Sohail, plaintiff No,2.
(i) Lacerated wound 2 cm x cm bone deep on right side of forehead.
Sufiyan Sohail, plaintiff No,3.
(i) H left femur.
(ii) H Rt Humerus.
(iii) H Bilateral mandible. Seep Sohail, plaintiff No,4.
(i) H Rt lilzin fibula.
(ii) Left ulna ralus No standard or method of proof can be laid down with precision in the claims made under the category of general damages including the mental torture. In the suits for damages, the doctrine "Res ipsa loquitir" is to be applied as it is attracted when the things that inflict damage are under' the sole management and control of the respondent. Reliance is placed on 2003 CLC 885 (Lahore)" titled Sabran Bibi and 7 others v. WAPDA through Chairman, WAPDA House. Damages In. May be awarded on account of mental anguish as well. D Reliance is placed on "PLD 1996 SC 737" titled Sufi Muhammad Ishague v. The Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore through Manor and "2013 SCMR 507" titled Malik Gul Muhammad A wan v. Federation of Pakistan. In the instant case, the whole family has sustained physical injuries and suffered mental torture and agony and has been made to languish for the rest of the life. The sole earning male has become disabled permanently and business of his wife has closed down. The appellants have sustained actual loss and collateral loss.
Car smashed, job gone, business crashed, all physically crippled, the future of the two minor children blurred all the plaintiffs made to lead a subnormal and C depressed life. The plaintiffs deserve to be recompensed reasonably. The claim of the appellants is not fanciful or remote and in fact it has fairly and naturally resulted from the wrongful act of the respondents which stands proved by the evidence produced by the appellants. The respondents have failed to prove the absence of their rashness and negligence in the accident, which was their duty to prove in order to avoid the liability. Reliance is placed on "2006 SCMR 207" titled Punjab Road Transport Corporation v. Zahida Afzal and others and "2002 MLD 1892" titled Tahira Igbal and 2 others v. Zafar Igbal and 2 others. The appellants remained under treatment in the hospital for a considerable time. We have gone through the entire evidence with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants and it has transpired to us that the unfortunate accident is a result of rash driving of respondent No,2. Respondent No,2 instead of providing emergency medical aid and rescue to the appellants, opted to desert. This adds more negligence to his conduct and behaviour during the unhappy episode. The case-law referred by the learned counsel for the appellants fully augments his version regarding the enhancement of amount of compensation. We hold that the amount of compensation fixed by the learned trial Court is too meager and the same does not commensurate to the injuries, mental agony, torture suffered and loss of the physical and mental capabilities wholly or partly sustained by the appellants. The amount is increased to Rs,15,00,000 in view of the depreciation in the value of currency during the past two decades. The appellants are also held entitled to receive the markup at the bank rate on the unpaid decretal amount since 4- 9-2004, the date of the decree of the trial Court and on the decretal amount from the date of decree of this Court till its realization. Reliance is placed on 1995 SCMR 446 and 2013 SCMR 507 supra. This appeal stands accepted.