1. This suit has been filed by the parents' and brothers of deceased Muhammad Salim, who died in an accident on 10-11-1978. The suit has been filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, plaintiff No. 1 is the mother, plaintiff No. 2 the father and plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4 are the brothers of the deceased. The case of the Plaintiffs is that deceased Muhammad Salim, while he was returning home on his motorcycle on 10-11-1978 was crushed by bus No. 801-098. Muhammad Salim was seriously injured in the accident and was taken 'to Civil Hospital where he died on account of injuries received in the accident.
2. According to the case of the plaintiffs, the accident was .Caused on account of rash and negligent driving of defendant No. 2, who was the driver of the bus in question. Defendant No. 1, has been joined as owner of the bus. Defendant No. 2 did not file his written statement after service of summons on him and as such he was debarred from filing written statement. He remained absent throughout. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement and he was represented by Mr. Ansar Hussain, Advocate. On 16-9-1981, Mr. Ansar Hussain stated that the file of the case had been taken away by defendant No. 1 and that he did not want to attend to the case on behalf of defendant No. 1. Since then Mr. Ansar Hussain has not appeared in the case, the following issues were settled by the Court :- "(1) Is the suit bad for non-joinder of the proper party ?
(2) Did the bus No. 801-098 cause the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased ?
(3) Who was the owner of the bus on 10-11-1978 ?
(4) Was the accident result of negligence or it was the result of contri--butory negligence ?
(5) Is defendant No. 1 liable to pay damages. If any, to what extent ?
(6) What, compensation, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled to ?
3. Four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, namely P. W. 1 Perwaiz Iqbal (Exh. 5), P. W. 2, Sideman, son of Fazal (Exh. 6), P. W. 3, A. S. I: Raja Adalat Khan (Exh. 7) and P. W. 4 Muhammad Azim (Plaintiff-2, Exh. 8). No evidence was led on behalf of the defendants as defendant No. 2 did not even file any written statement and has not appeared at all in this case and defendant No. 1, though he had filed written statement, has remained absent.
4. Issue No. 1 was framed on the basis of the averment in the written statement of defendant No. I, Mahmood that he was not the owner of the bus in question but the bus "in fact stands in the name of one Khalil Ahmad and from whom one Abdul Rehman's had purchased the bus on instalment and later on defendant No. 1, purchased the bus from Abdul Rehman's on instalment basis". The denial of defendant No. 1, regarding his ownership of the bus is of no consequence as he himself in para. 3 of his written statement has admitted that be purchased the bus from Abdul Rehman's on instalment basis. Further P. W. 3, A. S. I. Raja Adalat Khan has produced Exh. 7/1 which is a copy of the `superdaginama' dated 28-12-1978. The original of Exb. 7/1 was brought alongwith the file by P.
5. W. 3 who was allowed to take back the original and the photostat copy (Exh. 7/1) was taken on record. This superdaginama is signed by defendant No. 1, Mahmood and he shows himself as the son of Muhammad Siddiq, resident of 1. Area, Quarter No. 335, Korangi and owner of Saddar Auction Mart and further states in the supardaginama' that bus No. 801-098 was his bus which he had taken on instalment basis from Khalil Ahmed. In the face of the admission made in para. 3 of the written statement of defendant No. 1 and Exh. 7/1, it is established that at the time of the accident defendant No. 1, was the owner of the bus. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in the negative and I hold that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of proper parties.
6. Issue No. 3 relates to ownership of the bus on the date of the accident and is connected with issue No. 1. In view of my finding on issue No. 1, I decide that on 10-11-1978 defendant No. 1 was the owner of the bus in question and issue No. 3 is decided accordingly.
7. On issue No. 2, there is the evidence of. P. W. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2 and Exh. 7/1 is Superdaginama and Exh. 7/2 is an application made by Khalil Ahmad addressed to the A. C. M. Arambagh, Karachi, to the effect that bus No. 801-098 had caused the fatal accident. Defendant No. 1 has not come in the witness box and no evidence has been led on behalf of the defendants. I accordingly find on issue No. 2 that bus No. 801-098 bad caused the accident which resulted in the death of deceased Muhammad Salim.
8. Issue No. 4 relaters to negligence. As stated earlier defendants have not come forward to lead any evidence. On behalf of the plaintiffs, there is the evidence of P. W.
1. Pervaiz Iqbal and plaintiff No. 2.
9. It has also come in evidence of P. W. I that after the accident the bus had been abandoned by the driver and the conductor. A case had also been registered against defendant No. 2, driver of the bus in question, and P. W. 3 Raja Adalat Khan has deposed that defendant No. 2, had absconded and the criminal case against defendant No. 2 in respect of the accident in question is lying in dormant file. There is no evidence on record to show that there was any contributory negligence on the part of deceased Muhammad Salim. On issue No. 4 my finding in the circumstances is that the accident, which caused the death of Muhammad Salim, was as a result of negligent driving on the part of defendant No. 2.
10. Issues Nos. 5 and 6 relating to damages/compensation can be taken together. Under the Fatal Accidents Act, brothers of the deceased cannot make a claim. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted to plaintiffs 3 and 4 who are the brothers of the deceased. Plaintiff No. 2 Muhammad Azim, father of deceased Muhammad Salim, has stated in his evidence that the deceased was a Mechanical Engineer having obtained the degree of Bachelor of Engineering from N. E. D. College, Karachi and was working in Embassy Air-conditioning Company at a salary of Rs. 2,500 per month a the time of his death. His age was 28 years at the time of his death as per the deposition of Plaintiff No. 2. He further deposed that the deceased was in good health. Plaintiff No. 2, the father, has given his age as 56 years when he gave evidence and the age of Plaintiff No. 1 as 48 years.
11. Plaintiff No. 2 has further stated that out of his salary the deceased was, giving Rs. 2,000 to the family. There was no cross-examination as defendants were absent and the entire evidence of P.
12. W. 2 has gone uncontroverted.
13. If the deceased had not died in the unfortunate accident, he is likely to have lived upto the age of at least 60 years. However, as in the present suit, the only plaintiffs who are entitled to claim compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act are his parents, it is their ages which become relevant for purposes of assessm ent of damages. According to the evidence of plaintiff No. 2, the father was about 53 years of age at the time of death of the deceased and Plaintiff No. 1, the mother was 45 years old. Plaintiff No. 2 bad stated in his evidence that he was mason. The deceased being a qualified. Engineer and earning Rs. 2,500 per month, it is natural to accept that a part of his earnings he must have been giving to the family and he would have gone on giving the same in future if he had not died in the accident. The mother being 45 years of age at the time of the accident, she could expect to receive financial assistance from the deceased for a period of 15 years and the father for a period of about seven years. I have, therefore, taken, the period of 15 years as the period during which the deceased would have given financial assistance to the plaintiffs. The deceased was not married at the time of the accident but according to the evidence of Plaintiff No. 2 he was going to get married after two months. He may have been giving Rs. 2000, every month to his family but after his marriage his expenses on himself' and his were and children would have definitely increased. On an average, therefore, I have taken a sum of Rs. 1,000 per month as the amount which the deceased was likely to have given to his parents for a period of 15 years which comes to Rs 1,80,000. On issues Nos. 5 and 6 my finding is that both/ the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay, the sum of Rs. 1,80,000 to plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 as damages.
14. I, therefore, pass a decree in favour of Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 against both the defendants jointly and severally in the sum of 'Rs. 1,80,000. The Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 shall also be entitled to costs. The suit of Plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4 is dismissed.