1. This is a suit by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.6,00,000 under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.
2. The plaintiff is the mother of the deceased, Sitara Bibi, and her case is that the Sitara Bibi died on 4- 1-1988 as a result of the accident caused by the defendant No.2 while driving Bus No.862-888, belonging to the defendant No. 1, in rash and negligent manner. It is alleged that the deceased, at the time of her death, was 38 years old and was healthy; and that she was earning Rs.1,500 per month from her job as a Motivator in the Population Planning Division. It is further alleged that she was also earning Rs.500 to Rs.600 per month by way of over time and further sum of Rs.1,000 to Rs.1,200 per month through tailoring, stitching and cutting of ladies and children dresses. The suit proceeded ex parte against defendant No.2.
3. The defendant No. I has filed a written statement alleging that the suit is mala fide and pleading that the deceased, after her marriage, was not member of her mother's family and the mother, therefore, was not entitled to sue in the capacity of legal representative; and generally denying the allegations in the plaint.
4. Upon the above pleadings, the following Issues were framed:---
(i) Whether the suit is mala fide as detailed in the preliminary objections?
(ii) Whether the suit is maintainable?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is the dependent legal heir of the deceased?
(iv) Whether any accident was caused by Bus No.862-888 (or) the deceased ' (herself) was responsible for (her) death?'
(v) Whether the defendant No. I was the owner of Bus No.862-888 and the defendant No. 2 was the driver/employee of the defendant No. 1, at the relevant time?
(vi) Whether the deceased died due to the accident as alleged and the defendants are liable to pay compensation/damages to the plaintiff's legal heirs as claimed, jointly and severally?
(vii) What relief or reliefs (is) the plaintiffs are entitled?
(viii) What should the decree be?
(ix) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs and interest as claimed?
5. The plaintiff has examined herself, Laiquan (P.W.2), Ghulam Abbas (P.W.3), Saeed Ahmed Siddiqui (P.W.4) and Muhammad Ali (P.W.5) and the defendant has examined Azmatullah Khan (D.W.1).
6. I have perused the record and proceedings and heard the learned counsel for the parties; and my findings on the issues are as follows: -- ISSUES NOS. 1 AND 2.
7. Mr. Shaffat Hussain does not press these issues.
8. ISSUES N0.3.
9. Mr. Shaffat Hussain submits that the plaintiff, mother of the deceased, is not a dependent legal heir of the deceased and is, ,therefore, not entitled to maintain the suit. Mr. Nasir Maqsood states, in reply, that the mother is one of A the beneficiaries mentioned in section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act and is, therefore, entitled to maintain the suit. Mr. Shaffat Hussain does not contest that the mother is one of the beneficiaries. This issue is, therefore, decided accordingly.
10. ISSUE N0.4 This issue is really concerned with the alleged negligence on the part of the defendant No.2.
11. Ghulam Abbas (P.W.3) has stated in his evidence that the Bus No.862-888 belonging to the defendant No. l came from Quaidabad at a great speed and was zigzagging on the road and was over taking other vehicles and hit one lady, who was standing near the Wireless Gate and the lady fell down. In the cross-examination he has affirmed that "the Bus No.862-888 while approaching the bus stop at Wireless Gate from Quaidabad side was coming in a zigzag manner when it hit Mst.
12. Sitara Begum. Mst. Sitara Begum was hit by the front side of the bus. The bus came to stop about 25 paces away from the spot where the accident had occurred. It is incorrect to say that the bus was not coming at fast speed or that I did not see the accident myself".
13. He has also stated in the cross-examination how he came to know that it was Sitara Begum, who had been hit by the bus. The evidence of this witness quite clearly shows that the defendant No.2 was. Driving the bus in question in a rash and negligent manner; and that the accident was caused as a result of the negligence on the part of the defendant No. l . The issue as framed also raises the question of the possible responsibility of the deceased for the accident. There is, however, no evidence on the record to show that the deceased was guilty of any negligence. In fact, the evidence of Ghulartt Abbas shows quite clearly that the defendant No.1 was solely responsible for the accident. The issue is, therefore, answered accordingly.
14. ISSUE N0.5 The evidence of Ghulam Abbas that the bus in question belonged to the defendant No.1 has not been challenged in cross-examination; and Mr. Shaffat Hussain quite rightly, does not press the issue.
15. ISSUE N0.6 The witness, Khatoon Bibi, has stated that the accident occurred on 4-1-1988 and the deceased died on the same day. Khatoon Bibi has stated that she was informed by the police that her daughter, the deceased, had died in a road accident. Ghulam Abbas has also stated in his cross- examination that Sitara Begum died on the same day; and the report from the Jinnah Hospital (Exh.9-G) shows that the deceased was brought dead to the hospital. In view of this evidence, Mr. Shaffat Hussain does not contest the position that the deceased died as a result of the accident.
16. The issue is, therefore, answered accordingly. Consequently, the defendants are liable to pay damages to the plaintiff.
17. ISSUES NOS. 7. 8 AND 9 These issues concern the relief to which the plaintiff is entitled. Mr. Nasir Maqsood submits that as shown by the evidence of Saeed Ahmed Siddiqui the deceased was earning Rs.1,152 per month and he submits further that in view of the amendment in West Pakistan (Minimum Wages) Ordinance, the deceased would have earned Rs.1,500 per month after 1992 and would have earned at least Rs.500 per month after her retirement. Based on these submissions he states that for the four years of her death i.e. Upto 1992 the deceased would have earned Rs.1,152 per month i.e. Rs.13,824 per year i.e. Rs.52,296 for four years, that after 1992 she would have earned Rs.1,500 per month i.e. Rs.18,000 per year i.e. Rs.3,24,000 for 18 years; and for the remaining period after retirement she would have earned Rs.500 per month i.e. Rs.6,000 per year i.e. Rs.60,000 for 10 years. The total of the above amounts comes to Rs.4,39,296 and Mr. Nasir Maqsood says that the above figures are the minimum and that the deceased would normally have expected to increase her earnings and that, therefore, an amount equal to 20 % of the aggregate may be added to her expected income of Rs.4,39,296. The increase of 20% comes to Rs.87,859, which when added to the aforesaid sum of Rs.4,39,296 makes a total amount of Rs.5,27,155. Prom that amount of Rs.5,27,155 a sum equal to 1 /6th thereof has to be deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased leaving a balance of Rs.4,39,296. This is the amount of which the plaintiff and the beneficiaries of the deceased have been deprived. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to decree for Rs.4,39,296. The suit is, in the circumstances, decreed for p Rs.4,39,296 with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the suit till payment and costs of the suit.