KARACHI, May 17: Justice Qaiser Iqbal of the Sindh High Court ordered the owner and the driver of a rashly-driven bus to pay Rs800,000 to a boy hit and permanently disabled by the vehicle.
Hammad was four years old when he was hit by the bus (No JE 1273) near Qureshi Market, main Chishti Nagar Road, Sector 11 ½, Orangi Town, on Dec 19, 2002. The bus was being negligently driven by a driver without a valid driving licence. It was coming from Ittehad Town at an excessively high speed when it dashed into the boy and dragged him for about 12 feet.
The boy’s father, Sohail Hammad, wrote to the SHC chief justice about his plight. The CJ referred the matter to the member of the SHC inspection team for legal aid and assistance.
Advocate Nasir Maqsood, the plaintiff boy’s counsel, argued that Hammad lost his left leg and was crippled for life below his abdomen as a result of the injuries inflicted by the vehicle. The defendants argued that the boy’s parents were guilty of contributory negligence and should not have allowed him to come out of his house unattended.
The judge rejected the plea of contributory negligence as it would be unreasonable to expect children to remain confined to their houses. The driver had no licence to operate a heavy vehicle.
She assessed the pecuniary loss at Rs800,000 and asked the defendants to pay the compensation together with interest at the rate of 14 per cent till the date of full and final payments. She also ordered the defendants to pay the costs.
REINSTATEMENT: A division bench comprising Justices Mushir Alam and Mohammad Athar Saeed, meanwhile, directed the National Bank to reinstate Abdul Qadir, its employee, if he fulfilled the requirements prescribed by the rules.
Advocate Islam Hussain, the petitioner’s counsel, argued that Abdul Qadir was reinstated in service by the Federal Service Tribunal along with 100 other employees. However, after the Supreme Court judgment of June 2006 and in view of an SHC full bench order, the high court was also competent to provide him relief on account of discrimination.
The bench asked the respondent bank to check its record and verify whether the petitioner had completed three years of service without a break of over 15 days like his reinstated colleagues. If the verification was not completed within four weeks, the petitioner should be deemed to have fulfilled the criteria for appointment like his colleagues.
