Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
NUSRAT VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
MUHAMMAD SIDDIOUE OTHERSS VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
RAB NAWAZ OTHERSS VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
SULTAN KHAN VS SHER KHAN
Summary: Summary pending.
ARIF NAWAZ KHAN VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
MESSRS PAKL SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTION VS MESSRS PIONEER INSURANCE COMPANYLIMITED
Summary: Summary pending.
SULTAN KHAN VS SHER KHAN
Summary: Summary pending.
MAZHAR HUSSAIN OTHERSS VS KARAM HUSSAIN
Summary: Summary pending.
INAM DIN VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB
Summary: Summary pending.
PAKISTAN RAILWAY Versus ABDUL HAQQUE and others
Summary: Plj 1991 SC 125 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present DR Nasim Hassan Shah Saad Saood Jan And Rustam S Sidhwa JJ Pakistan Railway - Appellant versus Abdul Haq1que and others - Respondents Civil Appeal No 17 of 1988 dismissed on 9121990 [Against judgment dated 2611988 of High Court of Sindh passed in Hca No 119 of 1987] (i) Fatal Accidents Act 1855 (xiii of 1855) - - S 1Death by rash and negligent driving - Compensation fo 0 rSuit for Decree passed inChallenge to Whether master of vehicle is not vicariously responsible for payment of compensation - Question ofIt is well established that a master is liable for any tort committed by his servant while acting in course of his employmentMaster ould therefore appear to be a party who would be liable within meaning of section - Held There is nothing in text of Act that would militate against enforcement of ious liability against master for rash and negligent act on part of his servant (Per Saad Saood Jan J) [P 127] A (1942) 2 All ER 650 (1942) 2 All ER 464 (1953) 2 All ER 582 and Air 1936 Madras 247 rel (ii) Fatal AccidentsAct 1855 (xiii of 1855) - - S 1 - Death by rash and negligent driving - Compensation for - Suit for - Decree passed in - Challenge to - Contention that High Court should have awarded interest to parents f eceased from date of decree and not from date of institution of suit - Held As liability of appeallant is of vicarious nature it is only fair that interest should have been allowed rom date when amount of compensations was for first time quantified and not from date when suit was brought (PerSaad Saood Jan J) [p128jc (iii) Fatal Accidents Act 1855 (xiii of 1855) - - S 1 read with preamble - Death by rash and negligent driving - Compensation for - Suit for - Decree passed in - Challenge to - Contention that preamble of Act indicates intention of Legislature that damages are to be exacted from wrong - doer alone and not from his masterIf provisions of section 1 were intended to depart from general rule relating to vicarious liability of master clear words to that effect would have been used thereinHeld Words party ho would have been liable are of wider import nd there is no compelling reason to restrict their ambit by placing a narrow construction upon them so as to exclude liability of master who is under ordinary law esponsible for wrongful act of his servant [Ppl27128] BD Plj 1981 SC 100 rel Ch Fazal - i - Hussain Aor for Appellant Nemo for RespondentsJudgement Result:Appeal dismissed.