1. ' SYED ALI ASLAM JAFRI, J.---The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal are that a suit for recovery of Rs,15,50,000 under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was filed by respondent/plaintiffs Mir Zaman (father) and Mst. Flailunnisa (mother) of deceased Badaruzzaman aged about 19 years who died due to coming in contact with live electric wire loosely hanging from the pole on main road of Sector 4-F, Orangi Town, Mominabad, Police Station Karachi on 25-41991, on account of negligence, lack of care and default in performance of the duty on the part of defendant No,1. Defendant No,2 being an Insurance Company was also sued as defendant because it covers the third party risk of defendant No,1 in case of such type of accidents. The plaintiffs claimed a sum of Rs,15,50,000 as damages from defendant No,1 jointly and severally as well as interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount claimed from the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the decretal amount apart from the costs of the suit.
2. ' It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendant No,1 being responsible for construction and maintenance, properly looking after the net work of overhead wires, poles and other electric installations constructed by it in Karachi including Sector 4-F, Orangi Town Karachi failed to perform its duties and it was due to lack of care and precaution on the part of defendant No,1 that deceased Badaruzzaman who alongwith his relative Taj Muhammad was passing from that road on his way to work came in the contact with the said broken wire lying unattended on the road without any warning from the defendant No,1 and consequently both of them died there and then.
3. Badaruzzaman was working as Mason in SITE area and was very much perfect and skilled in Masonry work invoking plaster of the floors, brick erecting, mozaic, designing etc. And used to earn Rs,100 to Rs,200 per day. His total income per month was from Rs,5,000 to Rs,6,000. He was also trying to find out some job in Middle East Countries and he could have easily gone there after couple; of years and could have earned a sum of Rs,20,000 to Rs,25,000 per month. Keeping in view of the span of fiis life being up to the age of 80 years, the damages and compensation was assessed at Rs,15,50,000.
4. ' In its written statement the defendant No,1 denied the allegation of the plaintiffs and stated that it was due to unauthorised over loading of transmission lines, that such type of accidents took place and causes for the same are beyond the control and power of KESC which has a massive net work spread over many kilometers in Karachi and adjoining areas. It was pleaded that the death of Badaruzzaman was due to his negligence as he did not see the fallen wires. It was also stated that there was no element of causing intentional death as it takes times to attend to wire snapping incidents by the appellant. Staff was sent to attend and repair the snapped wires as soon as a phone call was received from Deputy Commissioner, West at 8-30 a.m., on 25-4-1991. It was further stated that there was lack of taking precautions on the part of deceased Badaruzzaman.
5. ' Defendant No,2 which is an insurance company in its written statement stateu that it simply covered the third party risk of defendant No,1 where the negligence on the part of said defendant was established and proved under the existing laws.
6. ' In view of the pleading of the parties of the trial Court settled the following issues:--
(1) "Whether the deceased Badaruzzaman died due to the negligence of appellant?
(2) Whether the death of deceased was the result of an accident?
7. (3)Whether the respondent No,3 is also liable to pay any compensation to the respondents Nos.1 and 2 jointly or severally as allegedly claimed?
8. (4)Whether the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to cost and interest/mark up/profits?
9. (5)What should the decree be?"
10. ' In support of their case plaintiffs examined their attorney P.W Khan Zaman and closed their side, on behalf of defendant No,1, D.W. Muhammand Anwar was examined.
11. ' The learned trial Court decided Issue No,1 affirmative and Issue No,2 in negative. So far Issue No,3 is concerned defendant No,2 was held jointly liable with defendant No,1. Plaintiffs were also found entitled to costs and profits on the decretal amount. However, instead of the amount as claimed by the plaintiff, the suit was decreed for the sum of Rs,5,40,000 only with costs and mark-up at the rate of 14% from the date of institution of the suit till its realization jointly and severally against the defendants.
12. ' We have heard Mr. Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori, learned counsel fe- the appellant and gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as the evidence on record and the judgment and decree assailed in this appeal. We find that while deciding Issues Nos.1 and 2 the learned trial Court has reached a definite conclusion that deceased Badaruzzaman died due to the negligence of defendant No,1 as the death occurred because of negligence, misfeasance and non-feasance of the defendant No,1, therefore, it could not be said that the death of deceased Badaruzzaman was result of accident. The defendant No,1 failed to keep automatic system in. Proper condition and operation in maintaining the wire system. While dealing with the quantum of compensation/damages a gross loss of pecuniary benefits for thirty years and after substracting personal expenses, compensation/damages were assessed as Rs,5,40,000 and interest has been allowed at the rate of 14% per annum from 2-10-1991 from the date of institution of the suit till its realization.
13. ' The learned counsel for the appellant after realizing that on merits there was no case, argued that the KESC is already under great financial crises and amount awarded by the trial Court be- reduced. We pointed out to the learned counsel that in our view the learned trial Court has already taken a very lenient view in the matter while assessing amount of compensation/damages awarded to the plaintiffs. The deceased was a young man still in his teens and he was an earning- hand of the family which has suffered a lot due to his untimely death as a result of carelessness and negligence on the part of the defendant No,1 in performing its duties by taking proper care and precaution. Instead of Rs,15,50,000 as claimed by the plaintiffs with an interest at the rate of 15% per annum, the learned trial Court has awarded only a sum of Rs,5,40,000 as compensation and mark- up at the rate of 14% per annum which does not call for any interference under the circumstances of the case.
14. ' By a short order dated 8-5-2001 we had dismissed this appeal in limine alongwith listed applications and the above are the reasons of the same.