| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 3080 2024 SLD 3080 2024 MLD 556 |
Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench
Civil Revisions Applications Nos.S-122, S-134, S-135 of 2011, decided on 21st February, 2022.Dates of hearing: 27th January, 17th and 21st February, 2022.
Present: Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, J
Muhammad Imran Khan for Applicant-Pakistan Railway (in Civil Revisions Application No.S-122 of 2011). Faisal Naeem for Applicants (in Civil Revisions Applications Nos.S-134 and S-135 of 2011 along with applicants). Ali Raza Pathan, Assistant Attorney Ge
Civil Revisions Applications Nos.S-122, S-134, S-135 of 2011, decided on 21st February, 2022.Dates of hearing: 27th January, 17th and 21st February, 2022.
Present: Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, J
Muhammad Imran Khan for Applicant-Pakistan Railway (in Civil Revisions Application No.S-122 of 2011). Faisal Naeem for Applicants (in Civil Revisions Applications Nos.S-134 and S-135 of 2011 along with applicants). Ali Raza Pathan, Assistant Attorney Ge
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Railway/Chairman Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Railway, Islamabad and others---Applicants
VS
ABDUL NAEEM and others---Respondents
Law:
Section:
Damages--- ----Recovery of damages from Pakistan Railways---Determination of quantum---Principle---Applicants / plaintiffs sought recovery of damages on the ground that despite purchase of tickets from respondent / defendant Pakistan Railways, they could not travel due to non-availability of coach in which their seats were booked---Suit was decreed by Trial Court in favour of applicants / plaintiffs but damages awarded against Pakistan Railways were reduced by Lower Appellate Court---Validity---Courts have to decide matters in accordance with law and particularly in such claims under tort law on the evaluation of evidence and not on financial condition of government organizations, which are otherwise saddled with law to serve people and not to cause them inconvenience and hardship---With regard to award of damages for mental anguish, torture and inconvenience, no fixed criteria can be laid down---Passengers (applicants / plaintiffs) including family members of one of the passengers, suffered mental anguish and extreme inconvenience when they learned that subject coach having their reservations was not available---Lower Appellate Court did not find any irregularity in evaluation of evidence done by Trial Court but had decided the matters / appeals on completely new and invented consideration, which had no nexus with the facts of the case and could not sustain---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside findings of Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court---Revision was allowed, in circumstances. Taluka Mukhtiarkar, Latifabad Hyderabad and another v. Vaqar Muhammad Shaikh and 2 others PLD 2004 Kar. 472; Mst. Khadija Karim v. Zia-ur-Rehman Khanzada and 7 others PLD 1999 Kar. 223; Secretary, B & R, Government of West Pakistan and 4 others v. Fazal Ali Khan PLD 1971 Kar. 625; Noor Ali v. The Province of Sindh through Secretary to Government of Sindh, Home Department, Karachi and 3 others PLD 2020 Sindh 700; Ameeruddin v. Fazalur Rehman Khan 2003 YLR 136; Subedar (Retd) Fazale Rahim v. Rab Nawaz 1999 SCMR 700; Federation of Pakistan v. Mrs. Sultan Saud 2005 SCJ 550; Muhammad Yousaf v. Syed Ghayyur Hussain Shah and 5 others 1993…
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