Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 1116 1992 SLD 1116 1992 CLC 2462
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 128 of 1984, decided on 9th August, 1992. DATE of hearing: 12th April, 1992
HAZIQUL KHAIRI, J
Muhammad Maqsood and Nasir Maqsood for Plaintiffs. Mir Maqood Ali for Defendant No. 1. Riaz Muhammad for Defendant No. 2. Shamsul Arfin for Defendant No. 3

RIAZ MUHAMMAD and another

VS

SARWER SHAH and 2 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855)--- ----S.1---Death of child by rash and negligent driving---Suit for compensation by persons claiming to be parents of child---Defendants were owner and driver of car which caused death by rash and negligent driving---Defendants were liable to pay compensation but identity of parents of deceased child remained doubtful---Person claiming to be father of deceased was purported to have signed plaint but was not available to testify before Court---Other plaintiff claiming to be the mother could not produce her original identity card; copy of such card was produced wherein a different name was entered though in brackets the name which she claimed was also scribed---Plaintiff lady claimed that whereabouts of her husband were not known for the last three years--­Identity of plaintiffs thus, remained doubtful---Court has to ascertain whether person suing was the right person or not, and in case of doubt satisfactory evidence must be brought on record---Evidence produced by .plaintiffs by itself created strong doubts for their identity as father and mother of deceased child and discrepancy appearing in the names of both the plaintiffs had to be satisfactory explained from the record itself, otherwise adverse inference would be readily made by Court disentitling them of relief sought for---Suit was thus, liable to be dismissed on ground of plaintiffs having failed to establish their identity as parents of the deceased. Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edn, Vol. 17, para. 41 rel. (b) Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855)--- ----S.1---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R.15---Non-verification of plaint---Effect---Plaint in suit for compensation was not verified by plaintiff/mother; nothing was brought in her deposition by way of her examination-in-chief, which purported to affirm or verify contents of plaint signed by her and as such it had no evidentiary value---Not a word in plaintiffs deposition was found as to how and on what basis she claimed 'specified amount or any other amount by way of compensation---Plaintiff had thus, failed to establish as to how she would suffer on account of demise of her alleged son---Suit must fail…
🔒
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