Mst. MISBAH FAROOQ vs DAEWOO PAKISTAN EXPRESS BUS SERVICE LIMITED S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Mst. MISBAH FAROOQ VS DAEWOO PAKISTAN EXPRESS BUS SERVICE LIMITED S.9---Suit for recovery of damages, filing of---Jurisdiction of Civil Court, invoking of---Ouster of Civil Court's jurisdiction in certain cases discussed--- Question as to what law governs the suit for recovery of damages---Held: Suit for recovery of damages is governed by S. 9 of C.P.C. as it would operate and vest jurisdiction in the Civil Court to adjudicate the suits for recovery of damages and the Civil Court is not robbed of its jurisdiction to try such kinds of suits as the said provision is all encompassing---This is based on well settled position of law that ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court conferred upon it under S. 9 of C.P.C. cannot be readily inferred and an ouster by special law has to be specific, clear and unambiguous---Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court must be expressed, and ouster clause, ousting general law's jurisdiction, must be construed very strictly. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 661 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. MISBAH FAROOQ VS DAEWOO PAKISTAN EXPRESS BUS SERVICE LIMITED Definition---"Tort" is an act or omission that gives rise to an injury either to person or property---A tortious breach is where one party (the tort-feasor) breaches the legally protected rights of another party (the claimant)---Torts tend to fall within four categories---They are: 1) torts of physical integrity; 2) torts of interests in property; 3) torts of use and enjoyment of land and; 4) torts of reputation. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 661 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. MISBAH FAROOQ VS DAEWOO PAKISTAN EXPRESS BUS SERVICE LIMITED Doctrine of 'Res ipsa loquitur' 'the thing speaks for itself'---Essential ingredients---Applicability and significance---'Res ipsa loquitur' is Latin for 'the thing speaks for itself'---This doctrine applies, when the things that inflicted the damage was under the sole management and control of the defendant; secondly, the occurrence was such that it would not have happened without negligence; and thirdly, there must be no evidence as to why or how the occurrence took place---In such circumstances the defendants have to persuade the court that the accident did not occur on account of their negligence---In simple words, res ipsa loquitur means an inference of negligence in civil proceedings; it permits an inference of a defendant's negligence from the happening of an event and thereby creates a prima facie case of negligence sufficient for submission to a Court---To warrant submission of the inference for the court's consideration, the plaintiff must establish: (i) the event must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; (ii) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; (iii) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff---However, it is equally important to register that a defendant may rebut the inference of negligence with evidence that tends to cast doubt on the plaintiff's proof; and more importantly, the doctrine permits an inference of negligence to be drawn solely from the happening of the accident---The rule simply recognizes that some accidents by their very nature would ordinarily not happen without negligence---Res ipsa loquitur does not create a conclusive presumption in favor of the plaintiff but merely permits the inference of negligence to be drawn from the circumstances of the occurrence---Mere happening of an accident or injury will not give rise to an inference or presumption that it was due to negligence on the defendant's part, even in a strict liability context---It is insufficient by itself to establish a prima facie case of negligence , or to prove negligence as a matter of law---Stated another way, proof of an accident does not equate with proof of negligence---In an action based on negligence, the maxim res ipsa loquitur is merely a rule of evidence effecting onus; it does not alter the general rule that the onus to prove negligence rests upon the claimant---The doctrine has been applied to situations where a motor vehicle mounted the footpath , where a vehicle struck a pedestrian who was walking alongside the highway , where it was shown that the brake pipe of the vehicle was beyond repair, and where a vehicle of unsound condition was being driven on a poor road on a dark night. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 661 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. MISBAH FAROOQ VS DAEWOO PAKISTAN EXPRESS BUS SERVICE LIMITED S. 9, O. VII, R. 14 & O. XVI, Rr. 1, 2---Suit for recovery of damages---Fatal road accident---Negligence on the part of vehicle company alleged---Onus to prove---Expert evidence, relevance of---Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur 'the thing speaks for itself', applicability of---Claim of vehicle being mechanically unfit resulting in the accident had to be proved through specific evidence---The appellants/plaintiffs filed a civil suit for damages against a transport company, following a serious road accident---Appellants/plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 (mother and daughter) were passengers on the bus, while the remaining appellants/ plaintiffs were immediate family members affected indirectly by the consequences of the accident---As a result of the accident, appellant/ plaintiff No. 1 was rendered permanently disabled, causing physical, emotional, and financial distress to the family---The primary claim was that the bus was mechanically unfit and unstable from the start of the journey, whereas, defendant company contended that the accident occurred due to a fault of another vehicle which suddenly changed lanes, forcing the bus driver to swerve, resulting in a rollover---The Trial Court partly decreed the suit, awarding Rs. 140,000 to plaintiff No. 1 and Rs. 40,000 to plaintiff No. 2---Dissatisfied from the Trial Court's decision, the appellants/plaintiffs filed the present appeal---Held: Considering that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur 'the thing speaks for itself' only supplied an inference and not a conclusive presumption and since the defendants through their evidence were able to cast doubts by denying the claim of the appellants, the appellants/ plaintiffs were required to produce some expert evidence to bridge the gap but none was produced---The evidence brought by the defendants remained unchallenged---Since the appellants/plaintiffs had opted to take a specific position that occurrence was due to bus's mechanical and fitness failure, therefore, they had to prove it by producing some evidence but they failed to do so---It was clear that in the present case doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not attracted and normal rule of evidence prevailed, therefore, the onus of proving negligence on part of the defendant was on the appellants/plaintiffs, particularly when the defendant had unrooted the prima facie presumption by producing bus driver, bus hostess and workshop in-charge, since it was appellant/ plaintiffs' position that the accident occurred due to fault in the bus---Neither the appellants/plaintiffs sought to rely on the record of maintenance and fitness of the vehicle in issue nor they sought to produce any such record or evidence through process of the court in terms of O. VII, R. 14, read with O. XVI, Rr. 1 & 2 of the C.P.C.---Had the appellants/plaintiffs applied for expert [advice or evidence] for the inspection of the bus or sought appointment of any expert and the response the respondent/defendant company had opposed such prayer, there would have been some inference in favour of the appellants/ plaintiffs---Although it was proved that appellant/plaintiff No.1 had sustained injuries, she was bedridden for life and her family members might be facing trauma and emotional stress for life, however, it was not proved that those had occurred due to direct negligence by the respondent/defendant company---There was nothing on record which could have established that the bus carrying the appellants/plaintiffs had any mechanical fault, which fault was then instrumental for causing the accident---Appeal being without merit was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 661 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. MISBAH FAROOQ VS DAEWOO PAKISTAN EXPRESS BUS SERVICE LIMITED 'General damages' and 'special damages'---Definitions---Distinction---Standards of proof---The "general damages" are implied or presumed to have accrued from the wrong complained of, for the reason that they are its immediate, direct or proximate result or such that thus necessarily result from the injury, or such that they did in fact result from the wrong, directly or proximately---The term "special damages" is defined as those which are actual, but not the necessary result of the injury complained of, and which in fact follow it as a natural and proximate consequence in a particular case i.e. by reason of special circumstances or conditions---Such special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved---In a suit for damages, the wrong done to the plaintiff must be proved to be immediate, direct or proximate result of the act, or acts of negligence. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 661 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. MISBAH FAROOQ VS DAEWOO PAKISTAN EXPRESS BUS SERVICE LIMITED Justice and morality---Standards and yardstick to be adopted by courts while deciding cases---Scope---Judicial decisions must rest on legal principles, not on compassion or emotions---Justice or morality do not signify any concept of precision as morality may fluctuate from one community to another and from one country to the other---Courts are not required to enforce moral standards but as courts of law are merely concerned with the enforcement of law enacted by the legislature---Courts of law are not mandated to rule on the basis of mere agony, unfortunate pain and helplessness---It is the duty of every court to implement the enforced laws and to decide the disputes in accordance therewith, rather than on the basis of compassion---Any relief granted on the touchstone of subjective standards of leniency and compassions, rather than the law, cannot be sustained. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 661 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mst. MISBAH FAROOQ VS DAEWOO PAKISTAN EXPRESS BUS SERVICE LIMITED arts. 72, 117 & 120---Tendering of document in the statement of counsel---admissibility of such documentary evidence---Disputed documents tendered in evidence through counsel's statement cannot be considered because such procedure deprives the opposing party to test the authenticity of those documents by exercising its right of cross-examination.

Mst. MISBAH FAROOQ vs DAEWOO PAKISTAN EXPRESS BUS SERVICE LIMITED S — 2025 PLD 661 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD