This is regular second appeal by WAPDA against a decree passed by the Civil Judge, Multan and upheld by Additional District Judge, in a suit filed by Mst. Khatoon and others for recovery of Rs.
1,00,000 as damages.
2. The relevant facts are that one Muhammad Saleem was electrocuted and died on 5th of July, 1967. The deceased was running the business of iron in a shop at Nishtar Road, Multan. The staff of the appellant used to shift the wiring temporarily in front of the shop of the deceased. The wires were unguarded and touched the girder of the shop. The concerned staff of the appellant was asked to make permanent arrangement but they failed to take preventive measures. It is pleaded that on 5th of June, 1967, the wires passing through electric pool touched the girder and as a result thereof the deceased Muhammad Saleem was electrocuted and died. The incident was reported to the staff of the appellant, who reached the spot, and disconnected the wires. The suit was filed by widow, sons and daughters of the deceased. It was claimed that deceased was about 21 years old and his income was about Rs. 500 per month. The plaintiffs claimed the amount of Rs.1 lac while treating the average age 40 years.
2-A. The appellant resisted the suit. The trial Court accordingly framed the following issues:- (1)Whether Muhammad Saleem died due to negligence of the defendant company ?
(2)If issue No.1 is proved, are the plaintiffs as heirs of Muhammad Saleh entitled to any compensation from the defendant, if so, to what amount ?
(3)Relief.
3. The parties have led their respective evidence. The trial Court after hearing the arguments, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 26 June, 1981. The appellant challenged thisth order through appeal before the District Judge, Multan, who entrusted the appeal for disposal to Addl. District Judge, who proceeded to dismiss the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 17-1- 1988. This led to the filing of the present second appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that learned lower Courts while decreeing the claim did not take into consideration the age of the widow. It was material according to the learned counsel while fixing the quantum of damage because the age of beneficiaries is also to be taken into consideration. I have asked the learned counsel as to the age of the widow according to him. He stated that she is about 30 years old. The expected span of life in Pakistan has been considered as 60 years. The trial Court in this behalf has referred to the case of Mst. Sharifan v. Karachi Electric Supply Company Ltd.
Reported as (PLD 1981 Karachi 701). The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to refer to any evidence led by the appellant as to the age of the widow. Even otherwise it is immaterial because if the deceased was about 25 years old then the widow if not younger must be of his age. Therefore, it will not make any difference even if her age is taken as 30 years as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. Lastly, it was argued that the plaintiffs have failed to prove issue No. 1, therefore, they were not entitled to decree. The negligence is finding of fact which stand closed by concurrent of Courts below. I have gone through the judgments and find that the issue has been dealt with comprehensively with reference to evidence.
6. The Courts have mainly based its finding on Ex. P.5 report of the Electric Inspector. The relevant portion reads as under:- "The service line was running through iron eye bolts throughout from one end to other end. But on the very said shop on which the accident took place two iron eye bolt were found uprooted from the wall, and as a result of this service line was hanging loosely with the G.I. Barer Wire in such a loose manner that it was fouling with the M. S. Bar supporting the iron scale. The insulation of the service line was found tapped at many places including a short length of the same about six inches to 8 inches in close approximately of the M. S. Bar. The barer wire was not earthed and the same became energised due to accidental leakage from a metallic junction box installed about fifty to sixty feet away from the particular shop. The barer wire in turn, energized the M. S. Bar and the iron scale causing the account electrocution of the deceased."
The Electric Inspector is not only public servant, independent and disinterested person but also a technical hand. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve his report.
7. Before concluding this judgment, I may observe that the plaintiffs claimed reasonable amount, they neither exaggerated the income of the deceased nor the period. They fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.400 and benefit for 40 years. They, could have conveniently claimed a higher monthly income and benefit for a greater period. There trial Court has held that average income of an employee of Grade-IV in our country is Rs.2,500 per year and average age 65 years. The reliance was placed on Mst. Kalsoom v. Jalil Ahmad Khan and another reported as (PLD 1964 Karachi 72). The deceased, according to the School Leaving Certificate was 21 years old at the time of death. The Civil Judge, therefore, allowed benefit for 44 years. This is not much. This means about Rs. 208 per month. The Compensation was neither claimed at exaggerated rate nor the Courts have allowed the claim without basis.
8. The relevant portion of judgment of the appellate Court reads as under: - "It is next urged by the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant company that the compensation has been erroneously assessed by the learned lower Court. The contention is ill- founded. According to PW 7 the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.500 to Rs.600 per month.
According to DW. 4 his monthly income was Rs.100. His statement is not convincing as a person dealing m iron business will not earn Rs.3 a day. According to School Leaving Certificate Ex. P.2 the deceased Muhammad Saleem was born m the fear, 1946. He died at the age of twenty-one years as evidenced from Ell. P.I. The superior Courts of our country have taken expected span of life as sixty years as observed in authority Mst. Sharifan etc. v. Karachi Electric Supply Company Ltd.(PLD 1981 Karachi 701). Following these observations deceased Muhammad Saleem would be expected to live upto age of sixty years i.e. 39 years from the date of his death. Taking his monthly income at rate of Rs.500 per month, the amount of his earning for thirty nine years, came out to be Rs.2,56,8W.
The plaintiff/respondents have claimed compensation in sum of Rs.100,000 in consonance with his earning during expected span of his fife.'
9. The appellant has failed to prove that the decision of the Courts below is contrary to law or there are other substantial error in procedure. The findings on the point of negligence and quantum are finding of facts, which stand closed with the concurrent finding of the two Courts below I, therefore, find no merit and dismiss the appeal in limine.
M.Y.H./W-50/L