' The plaintiff had claimed compensation under the Fatal Accident Act in respect of their minor child Ghulam Hussain, then aged 2 years who was killed in an accident caused by a Truck owned by the defendant No,1 and driven by the defendant No,2. Risk of third party claims were covered by an insurance policy issued by the defendant No,3 insurance company. Only the defendant No,3 entered appearance on summons on the defendants Nos.1 and 2 could not be served in the ordinary process and through pasting. Eventually the aforesaid defendants were sought to be served through publication in daily "Mashriq", dated 22-10-1992 but they did not appear and by an order, dated 10-1-1993 they were directed to be proceeded with against ex parte. The defendant No,3 in their written statement showed ,ignorance about the incident causing death of Ghulam Hussain but took upto the defence that their liability under section 95 of the Motor Vehicle Ordinance was only confined to Rs,20,000.
2. Pursuant to a direction of the Court both the plaintiffs filed their respective affidavits in evidence alleging inter alia that their son Ghulam Hussain was standing outside their house when a Truck No,LSA-2593 driven rushly and negligently by the defendant No,2 hit the deceased and caused his instant death. The defendant No,2 was apprehended by standers-bye and handed over to police.
An F.I.R. Under section 304-A, P.P.C. Was also lodged and the aforesaid defendant was arrested. A medical certificate from Abbasi Shaheed Hospital indicating cause of death has also been placed on record.
3. The plaintiffs have claimed -compensation in the amount of Rs,50,00,000 as against the defendant. Since there is no evidence in rebuttal of the contention that death of the minor was caused by rush and negligent A driving of the defendant No,2 and that the Truck driven was owned by the defendant No,1. The plaintiffs assertion had to be accepted. With respect to the quantum of damages, however, certain principles for calculation thereof have been laid down by this Court and Mr. Nasir Maqsood, Advocate who was requested to assist the Court drew my attention to the cases of Dost Muhammad v. Pakistan Steel Mills Ltd. 1996 CLC 530, which I had the occasion to follow in Mairajuddin v. Government of Sindh 1998 M LD 1726. He also pointed out that the latter judgment has been upheld by a Division Bench in H.C.A. 167 of 1998 vide judgment, dated 14-5-1999 and leave to appeal against the same was refused by the Honourable Supreme Court vide order, dated 20-8-1999 in C.P. No,391-K of 1999. According to the method laid down in the above judgments the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation in the amount of Rs,5,94,400. Moreover, the defendant No,3 have asserted that their liability does not exceed to Rs,20,000 and this position has not been controverted by learned counsel for the plaintiff.
4. In the circumstances I would decree the suit in the amount of Rs,5,94,400 jointly and severally against the defendants subject to the caveatle that the liability of the defendant No,3 would only be confined to Rs,20,000 together with 14% interest from the date of decree till final payment is made.
' I must record my gratitude to Mr. Nasir Maqsood for his assistance.