1. ' This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs under Fatal Accident Act for recovery of a sum of rs20,00,000. The plaintiffs' case briefly is that deceased Habib Ahmad who was the husband of the plaintiff No,1, father of plaintiffs Nos.2 to 5 and son of plaintiff No,6, was working in a foreign company and posted at Kuwait from where he had come to Karachi, Pakistan on 28-6-1986 and while going to Jamshoro Hospital, Hyderabad in Car No, 212-163 alongwith his cousin Muhammad Ahmed Pasha and the present plaintiffs No,1 and 5 to see his relative, his car met with an accident on Super Highway at about 3-30 p.m. The accident had taken place when bus No,KTRA 2235 owned by defendant No,1 which was driven at that time by defendant No,2, hit the car of the deceased from the front side while the said bus was overtaking another bus with the result that the said Habib Ahmad died on account of injuries received by him in the accident. The plaintiffs Nos.1 and 5 also sustained, injuries. Such F.I.R. Was also lodged with the police by Mohammad Ahmad Pasha, the cousin of the deceased. The plaintiffs claim that at the time of death of deceased he was drawing salary of US $1640 which at that time was, equivalent to rs26,240 and that this entire amount he was sending o the Plaintiffs who were his dependent family members It is further contended in the plaint that the age of the deceased Habib Ahmed was 52 years at the time of his death and normally he was expected to live to the age of 70 years and, therefore, the Plaintiffs have suffered pecuniary loss of above-said monthly amount for a period of about 18 years which comes to more than rs20,00,000. The Plaintiffs having given notices to the defendants have filed the suit.
2. The defendants filed their joint written statement contesting the plaintiffs' claim. The case of the defendants is that the defendant No,2 was not driving the bus negligently or rashly and therefore, he cannot be held liable for the accident. The case of the defendants further is that it was the negligence of the deceased who was driving his car in such a manner that he contributed towards the accident on account of his rash and negligent act. On these pleadings for the parties the following consent issues were framed:
(1) Whether the death of Habib Ahmed was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of Bus in question or due to his own negligence?
(2) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation, if yes, what should be the amount of compensation?
(3) Relief?
3. ' The Plaintiffs examined Dr. Nazar Mohammad, R.M.O., L.M.C.H. Jamshoro, Haji Abdul Ghafoor, Sub- Inspector, Police and filed the affidavit-in-evidence of the Plaintiff No,1 and P.W. Mohammad Ahmad Pasha. The first witness was not cross-examined by defendants' Advocate while Haji Abdul Ghafoor and Plaintiff No,1 were cross-examined by the Advocate for the defendants. P.W.
4. Mohammad Ahmad Pasha, however, was not cross-examined by the defendants as none was present on their behalf. The defendants thereafter remained absent and did not lead any evidence as such their side was closed' and the matter was put off for arguments on 24-9-1991 when the arguments of learned counsel for the Plaintiffs were hard and the suit was reserved for Judgment as none was present for the defendants. My findings issuewise and reasons therefor are as under:- ISSUE No,1.
5. ' The fact that the accident had taken place is not denied by the defendants. The question, therefore, is whether the said accident resulting in the death of the deceased Habib Ahmad was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus in question or due to his own negligence. The Plaintiff No,1 as well as P.W. Mohammad Ahmad Pasha, have been examined on this point. P.W.
6. Mohammad Ahmad Pasha was admittedly sitting in the car at the time accident had taken place.
7. In his affidavit-in-evidence he has stated that the bus which hit the car of the deceased was coming from the Hyderabad side which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed while the car of the deceased was on the left side of the road, P.W. Mst. Saman Seema Habib Plaintiff No,1 who is also the eye-witness of the accident as she too was sitting in the said car and had also sustained injuries to such magnanimity that she was hospitalised at L.M.C.H.
8. Jamshoro,\in affidavit-inevidence fully supported her case. She was cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the defendants. In her cross-examination she has specificaly stated:- "I saw it for myself that there were two buses coming in our front and' it was one bus which was attempting to overtake the other and it was the bus which was overtaking the other that hit us. It is incorrect that the accident occurred in such a way that we were found to be on the wrong side of the road. i.e on the right hand portion meant for the coming vehicles from Hyderabad. The fact of the matter is that we were on the left side and it was on that side that the bus which was overtaking hit us."
9. ' She has also produced the International Driving Licence of her husband as Exh.7/7. The F.I.R.
10. Lodged under Section 154, Cr.P.C. By P.W. Mohammad Ahmad Pasha (Exh.6/1) also shows that the bus was being driven at a very high speed which hit the car of the deceased. From the above evidence of the witnesses it is clear that the bus had hit the car of the deceased while overtaking another bus at the time when the car of the deceased was on the left side of the road. It is also proved from the above evidence that the bus was being driven rashly, negligently and at high speed. There is no evidence produced by the defendants in rebuttal. No doubt the P.Ws. Mst.
11. Saman Seema Habib and Mohammad Ahmed Pasha and the widow and cousin of the deceased, but this by itself cannot be reason to disbelieve them. There testimony has not been shattered in cross-examination not it can be said that they have gone out of the way to support the case of the prosecution. Reliance may be, placed on case of Hussain and others v. Mohammad Rafiq and others, PLD 1971 Karachi 129. I would therefore answer this issue in favour of the Plaintiffs holding that the death of the deceased Habib Ahmad was caused due to accident having occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus in question. ISSUE No,2.
12. ' On this issue the plaintiffs' case is that the age of the deceased at the time of death was 52 years This fact has not been denied by the defendants in their written statement. The Plaintiffs' claim that normally the deceased would have lived upto the age of 70 years In support of this contention the Plaintiff has stated that Plaintiff No,6 the mother of the deceased, was alive at the time of filing of the suit, and was 77 years of age and was still living. However, no other instance has been cited by the Plaintiffs. I, therefore, am inclined to hold that the normal life expectancy in this country would be 65 years as held in the case of Naseer Khan and another v. Muhammad Yousuf and another 1989 CLC 1970 and also in Suit No,804/81 decided by this Court on 14-9-1989. Thus the Plaintiffs would be entitled to pecuniary benefits from the deceased who is said to be the only bread-earner for the family for a period of 13 years The Plaintiffs have produced 4 pay slips of the deceased as Exh. 7/8. The latest pay slip is dated 30-41986 which shows his gross pay as US $.1,640 but his net pay is shown as US. $ 1,61635 which would be equivalent to rs 25,861.60 at the rate of conversion then applicable. The plaintiffs' case further is that the deceased was remitting the entire amount to his family but they have not produced any document of remittance to prove their above contention. Even otherwise it can hardly be imagined that a person living in a foreign country would remit his entire emoluments to his family in Pakistan leaving nothing for his subsistence. It may also be observed that the standard and cost of living in a. Country like Kuwait at the relevant time was much higher than that in Pakistan. Obviously from his total emoluments the deceased must be spending quite a sizeable amount on his own personal expenses such as house rent, food and clothing. I would, therefore, allow only 50% of the above amount from the Plaintiffs emoluments as compensation. The compensation to be calculated at the rate of rs12,930.80 per month for the period of 13 years would come to rs20,17,204.80 which is more than the amount claimed by the Plaintiffs. Accordingly I allow the compensation amount of rs20,00,000 as prayed to the plaintiffs.
13. ISSUE No,3.
14. ' In view of the above discussion, the suit of the Plaintiffs is decree for sum of rs20,00,000 with no order as to costs.