# Accident with a company truck: who pays, owner or driver? > Yes, the owner can be made to pay. When a driver causes an accident while doing his job, his employer, usually the vehicle's owner, answers for it too. The Sindh High Court put it plainly: the "employer is always vicariously liable for acts of its employees performed in the course of duties" (2023 CLC 1008, para 17), and it decreed Rs 1,25,00,000 against the owner and the driver together (para 19). - Topic: Consumer rights - Court: Sindh High Court - Citation: 2023 CLC 1008 - The myth: "After an accident the owner owes nothing: catch the driver." Verdict: Wrong, if the driver was on duty. - Watch: https://failegal.site/media/road-accident-who-pays-owner-or-driver-pakistan-2023-clc-1008 (video https://failegal.site/media/road-accident-who-pays-owner-or-driver-pakistan-2023-clc-1008/reel.mp4, 1:23) - Published by FAI Legal on 2026-11-02 The driver in that case had been let off in the police case and in his department's own inquiry; the court said that is of no relevance to the claim for damages (para 13). But an accident on its own is not proof of fault: in 2025 the Lahore High Court turned down a bus passenger's claim because she brought no evidence that the bus was faulty (PLD 2025 Lahore 661, paras 10 and 11). ## Key points - An employer answers for what its employees do in the course of their duties, so the owner of a vehicle driven by his employee on duty can be sued along with the driver (2023 CLC 1008, para 17). - A driver's exoneration in the criminal case does not end the claim for damages: a civil court decides on the balance of probabilities, a criminal court beyond reasonable doubt (paras 13 and 14). - Slow speed is no defence by itself: the court said it is rash and negligent driving, even at slow speed, that makes a driver negligent (para 11). - The court awarded the full claim, Rs 1,25,00,000, with 10% markup from the day the suit was filed, against all the defendants jointly and severally; thirteen years after the accident the owner had offered Rs 1,53,000 (paras 18 and 19). - You still have to prove fault when the other side explains the accident: in PLD 2025 Lahore 661 the Lahore High Court refused a claim because the passengers brought no evidence that the bus was faulty (paras 10 to 13). Collect evidence early. ## Accident with a company truck: who pays? The short answer The owner can be made to pay as well as the driver, if the driver was working for the owner when the accident happened. The law calls this vicarious liability: an employer answers for the wrongs its employees commit in the course of their work. In 2023 CLC 1008 the Sindh High Court applied it to a road death and relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Karachi Transport Corporation v. Muhammad Hanif (2009 SCMR 1005) (para 17). So "catch the driver" is not an answer an owner can give when his employee hit you on the job. You can sue the owner and the driver together, and the court can make them liable jointly and severally, as it did here (para 19). ## Karachi, 2008: a government truck and a man on a motorcycle On 6 May 2008, in the area of Jackson Police Station in Karachi, a six-wheeler truck driven by an employee of the Pakistan Navy collided with a motorcycle. The rider, a 52-year-old dates trader, was crushed under the wheels and dragged about ten feet; the truck stopped some twenty feet later. He died of a head injury (2023 CLC 1008, paras 10 and 17). The police registered an FIR against the driver under section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and the Navy held a departmental inquiry. In both, the driver was exonerated (para 13). His widow filed a suit for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 a month after the accident, claiming Rs 1,25,00,000 from the Federation of Pakistan through the Ministry of Defence, the Navy and the driver (paras 1, 2 and 8). The defendants said the truck was moving at 25 km/h, was in good condition, and that the rider fell while trying to overtake from the wrong side (paras 3 and 6). On 4 October 2021, thirteen years after the accident, the Navy's representative offered the family Rs 1,53,000 (para 18). ## What the Sindh High Court decided on 30 November 2022 The court, Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan, J, decreed the suit in full: the defendants were held liable jointly and severally to pay Rs 1,25,00,000 with 10% markup from the date the suit was filed until payment (para 19). It found the claim maintainable under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855, which was enacted to compensate families for a death caused by an actionable wrong (paras 16 and 18). On liability, it held that the employer is always vicariously liable for acts of its employees performed in the course of duties (para 17). The ownership of the truck, the driver's employment with the Navy and that he was on duty were all admitted (para 10). On the amount, it applied the Supreme Court's principles in Punjab Road Transport Corporation v. Zahid Afzal (2006 SCMR 207): damages are worked out from the reasonable expectation of support the family lost, and may be an estimate where the exact loss cannot be known. Taking a life expectancy of 75 years in his family and his earnings of Rs 25,000 to 30,000 a month in 2008, it held the claim of Rs 1,25,00,000 justified (para 17). ## Why the driver getting off changes nothing The court relied on the Supreme Court in Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore v. Anis-ur-Rehman Khan (PLD 1985 SC 134): a criminal judgment decides only the criminal charge, and its findings are not binding in a later civil suit (para 13). A criminal court needs proof beyond reasonable doubt; a civil court decides on the balance of probabilities, so the findings of a criminal court or a disciplinary committee do not bind it (para 14). It also applied res ipsa loquitur, "things speak for themselves": what caused the death was known only to the defendants and the man who died, not to his widow; he was crushed under the truck's wheels, and the natural inference from the unexplained facts was negligence (para 12). Speed was no excuse for a heavy vehicle (para 11). ## The catch: an accident alone is not proof In Mst. Misbah Farooq v. Daewoo Pakistan Express Bus Service (PLD 2025 Lahore 661), decided on 4 March 2025, a Lahore High Court bench dismissed the appeal of passengers injured when a bus rolled over near the Bhera interchange in 2004. They had claimed Rs 100 million, saying the bus was mechanically unfit; the trial court had given them Rs 140,000 and Rs 40,000 under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965 (paras 1 and 2). The company brought its terminal manager, the bus hostess, the driver and its workshop in-charge, who said the bus was checked and another vehicle had suddenly changed lanes. The passengers produced no expert evidence, and never asked the court to call the bus's maintenance and fitness record or to have it inspected (paras 11 and 13). The court held that res ipsa loquitur only allows an inference, and that proof of an accident is not proof of negligence (para 10). The bench also said the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 is not applicable in Punjab; a claim for damages there is a civil suit in tort, which the civil court hears under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (paras 15 to 17). ## After an accident: what to do Collect proof at once: photos of the damage, the vehicles and the number plate; the names and numbers of witnesses; the police report (the FIR or the police station's daily diary entry); and the medical report. In 2023 CLC 1008 the family's case rested on the police station's diary entry, the cause-of-death certificate and the post-mortem report (para 9). Find out who owned the vehicle and who employed the driver, and sue both. If the other side says the vehicle was fit or someone else caused the accident, ask the court to call its maintenance and fitness record or to appoint an expert (PLD 2025 Lahore 661, para 13). Do not wait: suits for damages have time limits. Speak to a lawyer early about which court and which law apply where you live. ## For law students and lawyers The Supreme Court restated the test for vicarious liability in Pakistan Television Corporation v. Noor Sanat Shah (2023 SCMR 616, decided 27 September 2022): vicarious liability arises only if an employee committed a tort (para 14), in the course of employment (para 16), and if it is "fair, just and reasonable" to hold the organisation liable (para 17). In Sindh, once a death in an accident is admitted, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove negligence, and a failure to examine the driver draws an adverse inference (2023 CLC 1008, para 15, citing Rahim Ali Palari, 2020 MLD 1393, whose decree a Division Bench upheld in 2024 MLD 968). The Lahore High Court's 2025 bench reads res ipsa loquitur more narrowly, as an inference the defendant can rebut with evidence (PLD 2025 Lahore 661, paras 10 to 12). Not decided here: what a claim for damage to a vehicle alone is worth, or which time limit applies to it. The Sindh case was a death claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855; the Lahore case an injury claim in tort. ## Find rulings like this on FAI Legal Both judgments are on FAI Legal's Judgment Search (search for 2023 CLC 1008 or PLD 2025 Lahore 661), with their paragraphs open in the judgment reader. Ask FAI Legal your own question and see the law and the judgments behind the answer. ## The case at a glance - **Facts:** 6 May 2008, Karachi: a Navy six-wheeler hit a motorcyclist, who died; the driver was exonerated in the FIR under s.320 PPC and in a departmental inquiry; the widow sued the Federation, the Navy and the driver for Rs 1,25,00,000 under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855; in 2021 the Navy offered Rs 1,53,000. - **The question:** Was the death caused by the driver's negligence in the course of his employment; are the employer and the driver liable to compensate the family; and how much? - **What the Court held:** Yes. Negligence inferred (res ipsa loquitur); the employer is always vicariously liable for its employees' acts in the course of duties; the driver's exoneration in the criminal case is irrelevant to civil liability; Rs 1,25,00,000 with 10% markup from the date of the suit, jointly and severally. - **Why:** Admitted ownership, employment and duty (para 10); drivers of heavy vehicles owe extra care and slow speed is no excuse (para 11); unexplained facts within the defendants' knowledge infer negligence (para 12); criminal and civil standards differ (paras 13 and 14); 2009 SCMR 1005 on vicarious liability and 2006 SCMR 207 on damages (para 17). - **Limits:** A single-judge decision of the Sindh High Court on a death claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855. It does not fix what any claim is worth, and it does not make an owner pay for a driver who was not on duty. In Punjab the Act does not apply (PLD 2025 Lahore 661, para 15), and a claimant must still prove fault where the other side explains the accident (PLD 2025 Lahore 661, para 10). ## In the Court’s words > "It is well-established that exoneration of defendant No.3 from the charge in a criminal case is not of any relevance while determining civil liability of the defendant." (2023 CLC 1008, para 13) > "the Defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- to Plaintiff together with 10% (percent) markup from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the amounts" (2023 CLC 1008, para 19) > "Stated another way, proof of an accident does not equate with proof of negligence" (PLD 2025 Lahore 661, para 10) > "the Plaintiffs were required to produce some expert evidence to bridge the gap but none was produced" (PLD 2025 Lahore 661, para 11) ## The law it relies on - **Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 9:** "The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred." The Lahore High Court relied on it for damages suits in Punjab (PLD 2025 Lahore 661, para 16). - **Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, Section 320:** Qatl-i-khata by rash or negligent driving: imprisonment of either description for up to ten years, in addition to diyat. This was the criminal case against the driver (2023 CLC 1008, para 13), a separate case from the claim for damages. - **Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, Section 1:** Gives the family of a person killed by a wrongful act, neglect or default a suit for damages against the wrongdoer (applied in 2023 CLC 1008, paras 8 and 16). Not in FAI's statute index; the Lahore High Court said it is not applicable in Punjab (PLD 2025 Lahore 661, para 15). ## What this does not mean - It does not mean an owner pays for anything his driver does. The driver must have been acting in the course of his employment, and the accident must be his fault (2023 SCMR 616, paras 14 to 17; PLD 2025 Lahore 661, para 10). - It does not make the criminal case against a driver pointless. That is a separate case with a stricter standard of proof; it simply does not decide the claim for damages (2023 CLC 1008, paras 13 and 14). - It does not fix what a claim is worth. Rs 1,25,00,000 was this family's claim, based on the man's age, his earnings and his family's life expectancy (para 17). - The reel's opening scene, a loader with water bottles bumping a parked car, is a drawn example of the question people ask, not the facts of the case. ## Questions people ask ### Accident ho jaye to kya kare? What should you do after an accident? Keep proof straight away: photos of the damage and the number plate, the names and numbers of witnesses, the police report and the medical report. Then find out who owns the vehicle and who employs the driver; a claim for damages can be brought against both (2023 CLC 1008, paras 9 and 17). ### Who pays for an accident in Pakistan, the driver or the owner? Both can be liable: the driver for his own negligence, and his employer, usually the owner, for what he did in the course of his duties (2023 CLC 1008, para 17; 2009 SCMR 1005). ### Can I claim damages if the driver was acquitted or let off? Yes. A driver's exoneration in the criminal case is not relevant to civil liability, because a civil court decides on the balance of probabilities (2023 CLC 1008, paras 13 and 14). ### What proof do I need for an accident claim? Proof that the accident happened and that the other side was at fault. If the other side explains the accident, the accident alone is not enough: bring witnesses, the police record and, where the vehicle's condition is in issue, its fitness and maintenance record or an expert (PLD 2025 Lahore 661, paras 10 to 13). ### Does the Fatal Accidents Act apply in Punjab? The Lahore High Court said in 2025 that the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 is not applicable in Punjab; a claim for damages there is brought as a civil suit in tort under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (PLD 2025 Lahore 661, paras 15 to 17). ### How long does an accident compensation case take? It can take years. In 2023 CLC 1008 the accident was in May 2008, the suit was filed in June 2008 and the decree came in November 2022, with markup from the date of filing (paras 8 and 19). ## Sources - Mst. Bashira Bibi v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others, 2023 CLC 1008, Sindh High Court, 30 November 2022, paras 1 to 19. The employer is always vicariously liable for its employees' acts in the course of duties; the driver's exoneration in the criminal case is irrelevant to civil liability; Rs 1,25,00,000 with 10% markup, jointly and severally. (verified against full text) - Mst. Misbah Farooq and 5 others v. Messrs Daewoo Pakistan Express Bus Service Limited and 2 others, PLD 2025 Lahore 661, Lahore High Court, 4 March 2025, paras 1 to 20. Proof of an accident is not proof of negligence; the passengers led no expert evidence and sought no fitness record; the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 does not apply in Punjab, where a damages suit lies in tort under s.9 CPC. (verified against full text) - Pakistan Television Corporation v. Noor Sanat Shah, 2023 SCMR 616, Supreme Court of Pakistan, 27 September 2022, paras 14, 16 and 17. Vicarious liability needs a tort, committed by an employee in the course of employment, where it is fair, just and reasonable to hold the employer liable. (verified against full text) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 9 (text checked in FAI Statute Search, 2 November 2026) (official text: https://pakistancode.gov.pk/english/UY2FqaJw1-apaUY2Fqa-apeb-sg-jjjjjjjjjjjjj) - Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, Section 320 (text checked in FAI Statute Search, 2 November 2026) (official text: https://pakistancode.gov.pk/english/UY2FqaJw1-apaUY2Fqa-apaUY2Npa5lo-sg-jjjjjjjjjjjjj) ## What the reel says Accident with a company's truck, and the owner says "catch the driver, not me"? Accident ho jaye to kya kare: who pays, the driver or the owner? Wrong. If his driver was on duty, the owner pays too. Karachi, 2008: a government truck ran over a man on his motorcycle, and he didn't survive. The driver was let off in the police case and in the department's own inquiry. His widow sued the truck's owner; thirteen years later the owner offered Rs 1,53,000. On 30 November 2022 the Sindh High Court held that an "employer is always vicariously liable for acts of its employees performed in the course of duties", and that the driver getting off changes nothing in a damages case. Decree: Rs 1,25,00,000 with markup from 2008 (2023 CLC 1008). But an accident alone isn't proof: in 2025 the Lahore High Court turned down a bus passenger's claim because she brought no proof that the bus was faulty (2025 PLD 661). After an accident, what to do: 1. Take photos: the damage and the number plate. 2. Write down witnesses' names and numbers. 3. Keep the police report and the medical report. 4. Sue both, the owner and the driver. --- Educational legal information, not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. Speak to a lawyer about your own matter. Last checked: 2 November 2026. Review status: Pending advocate review. English: https://failegal.site/media/road-accident-who-pays-owner-or-driver-pakistan-2023-clc-1008 · Urdu: https://failegal.site/media/ur/road-accident-who-pays-owner-or-driver-pakistan-2023-clc-1008 FAI Media is part of FAI Legal (https://failegal.site), research on Pakistani statutes and judgments. Free to watch and read.