Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 689 2014 SLD 689 2014 MLD 1651
Sindh High Court
IInd Appeal No. 18 of 2009, decision Dated: 30-05-2014. Dateof hearing: 21-05-2014.
HASAN FEROZ, JUSTICE
Ashfaque Nabi Qazi A.G. for Appellant.Farukh Usman and Aamir Maqsood for
Respondents Nos.1 to 3.

PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHERSVSMST. SYEDA TASNIM FATIMA AND 3 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855)--- ----S.1---Fatal accident---Suit for compensation---Determination of amount of compensation---Plaintiff/legal heirs of the deceased, claimed that accident wherein deceased died occurred due to rash and negligent driving of defendant (driver), during deceased's employment with defendants---Defendants had not denied the ownership of vehicle in question as well as employment of defendant as their driver---Defendants had neither denied the accident nor death of deceased due to such accident---Plaintiff claimed damages of Rs.5,74,45000---Validity---Quantum of the compensation in fatal accident, was to be determined on the basis of the earning of the deceased, his average age, his legal heirs, their expected expenses as well as other attending circumstances---Trial Court assessed the compensation, keeping in view the average income of the deceased for his remaining excepted life as well as other things and calculated the amount to the tune of Rs.69,50298---Said determination of the compensation by the Trial Court was based on sound reason in as much as the basic aspects were considered while assessing the same---Trial Court had properly thrashed out the evidence of the parties and came to a right conclusion with regard to the responsibility of the defendants, as well as determination of the compensation in respect of the deceased, who was a young person having wife and children---Said findings of the Trial Court had rightly been upheld by the Appellate Court below---Findings of courts below on the issue of quantum of compensation, not suffering from any illegality or irregularity, arrived at after proper appreciation of evidence, could not be interfered with. PLD 2001 SC 213; PLD 1992 SC 838; 1972 SCMR 437; 1984 SCMR 621; 1993 SCMR 1149; PLD 1995 Kar. 329; 2007 SCMR 1394; Mrs. Gul Bano v. Muhammad Ramzan 1982 CLC 1120; Mst. Zebunnisa v. Sindh Road Transport Corporation 1982 CLC 1228; Spin Gul v. Ikramul Haq 1987 MLD 2402, Hayat Services Pak Ltd. v. Kandan 1989 CLC 2153; Kazi Arifuddin v. Government of Sindh PLD 1991 Kar 291; Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation v. Malik Abdul Habib 1993 SCMR 848; Mst. Sakina v. National Logistic…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492