' This suit has been filed by the parents of deceased Pervaiz Aslam under Fatal Accident Act 1855 for recovery of RS,4,56,000 as compensation. According to the plaintiffs, their son Pervaiz Aslam died in an accident caused by truck No,830-187 which was owned by defendant No,2 and which was being driven at the relevant time by defendant No,l. Defendant No,3 is Eastern General Insurance Company Limited with whom the vehicle was insured on the relevant date. Defendants Nos.1 and 2 were served but did not make appearance and -did not file any Written Statement and accordingly by order dated 25-9-1983 this suit was directed to proceed ex parte against defendants Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No,3, the Insurance Company filed a written statement in which they inter alia submitted that their liability was limited to the maximum of RS,20,000. The following issues suggested by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and defendant No,3 were adopted:- ' Whether the accident was caused due to negligence of the defendant No,1?
' What is extent of the liability of each of the defendants? To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled to?
' On behalf of the plaintiffs four witnesses have been examined. As observed earlier, defendants Nos.1 and are ex parte and no one appeared on their behalf during the trial. Defendant No,3 did not lead any evidence. P.W.1 Ghiyasul Mansoor, plaintiff No,1 and father of deceased Pervaiz Aslam. In his evidence he has stated that the deceased was an employee of M/S. Pfizer Laboratories Limited as an Agricultural Sales Representative at the time of his death and that he was also doing part time job with Erum Chemists. According to his evidence the deceased was getting RS,905 as monthly salary from M/S. Pfizer Laboratories Limited and he also used to draw travelling allowances and that he used to get RS,1,400 from Erum Chemists as their part time employee. He has further stated that the deceased used to pay RS,2,000 for household expenses to the plaintiffs.
' He has also deposed about the accident of his son but he is not an eye-witness. From enquiries made he came to know that the vehicle which caused the accident was being driven by defendant No,1 at the time of accident and it belonged to defendant No,2 and that at the time of the accident the vehicle was insured with defendant No,3. Exhibit 5/10 is the certificate of insurance which gives number of the vehicle as 830-187. The deceased was studying for his M.Pharmacy Degree in the University and according to the plaintiff No,1 he was expected to earn about 5,000 per month after passing his Pharmacy. The deceased was 22 years of age at the time of his death which took place on 27-1-1981. The plaintiffs have claimed RS,4,56,000 as damages at the rate of 1,000 per month for 38 yeaRS, P.W.2 is Zaheerul Haq, an officer of Pfizer Laboratories Limited. He deposed that the deceased was employed with them at a salary of RS,905 per month and that he was also entitled to bonus in addition to the salary. P.W.3 Talha Aqeel, an eye-witness, was also injured in the accident. According to his evidence he was sitting at the back of the motorcycle which was driven by the deceased. His evidence is very clear and establishes that the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by defendant No,1. This witness had been seriously injured in the accident and he was discharged from the hospital after 7 days. P.W.4 is A.S.I. Of Gulshan-e-lqbal Police Station who produced a photo copy of the F.I.R. Lodged against defendant No,l. He al-o gave registration number of the vehicle which caused the accident as 830-187.
2. Issue No,1 is about the negligence of defendant No,l. As observe earlier, defendant No,1 has not filed any written statement. N appearance has been made on behalf of the defendant No,1.
Evidence on record, specially the evidence of P.W.3, an eye-witness, who was also injured in the accident, has established that the accident was 'caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by defendant No,1. Issue No,1 is accordingly decided in the affirmative.
3. Issue No,2 is about the extent of liability of each of the defendant.The vehicle which caused the accident was a public vehicle and it is conceded by Mr.S.A. Majed, learned counsel for the plaintiffs that in these circumstances, the liability of the defendant No,3, the Insurance Company, is limited to RS,20,000. The plaintiffs have established a case for grant of damages against the defendants as it has been found that the accident was caused on account of the negligent driving o defendant No,1. At the time the accident was caused the vehicle which caused the accident was owned by defendant No,2 and as such the are also liable for damage to the plaintiffs.
' Plaintiff No,1 in his evidence and the plaintiffs in their plaint have calculated the damages that have been claimed by them at the rate of RS,1,000 per month for 38 years on the basis that the deceased was .22 years of age at the time of his death. However, in the instant case, the plaintiffs are the parents and, therefore, the ages of the plaintiffs are relevant. On the basis of the evidence, the ages of the two plaintiffs are taken as 55 years and it is expected that for about 10 years both the plaintiffs would have been financially assisted by the deceased who was their son. The plaintiffs have claimed compensation at the rate of RS,1,000 per month. However, on account of the salary that he was drawing and keeping in view his future prospects and the fact that the deceased was not the only son of the plaintiffs but one of the four sons of the plaintiffs, on an average it is expected that the deceased, if he had not died in the unfortunate accident, would have given RS,500 per month to the two plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to a decree in the sum of RS,60,000 calculated at the rate of RS,500 per month for a period of 10 years, Issue No,2 is decided accordingly.
4. Issue No,3 is regarding the relief. The plaintiffs are entitled to a decree in the sum of RS,60,000.
Suit No,425 of 1982 is decreed in favour of the two plaintiffs and against the defendants in the sum of RS,60,000 with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of the filing,, of the suit till realization. It is, however, ordered that the liability of the defendant No,3 under the decree is restricted to RS,20,000. The decrial amount shall be shared equally by the two plaintiffs.