1982C L C 646 (PLP)

Mahboob Ahmad for Appellant. Sh. Hamid Mukhtar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1981. This second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, dated the 22nd April, 1981, dismissing the appellant's first appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, dated the 15th September, 1980, whereby the respondent's suit for recovery of damages to the extent of Rs.17,000 was decreed, arises out pf the following circumstances. Rao Dasteir Ahmad Khan, an Advocate of this Court, applied to the Lahore Development Authority, appellant, on the 5th November, 1970 for installation of water connection in his residential House No. 2, Street No. 50, Islampura (Krishan Nagar), Lahore. He deposited the requisite fee on the 22nd December, 1970. Though no water connection was installed the appellant started sending the respondent bills for consumption of water. Despite protests lodged with and representations made to the appellant the respondent's grievance remained unredressed for no fewer than eight years. The appellant persisted in billing him with consumption of water and did not supply him water connection all along. The respondent ultimately instituted suit on the 9th September, 1978 for recovery of damages for physical inconvenience and mental agony and distress suffered by him and further on account cf payment that he had to make to person employed for supplying water. During the course of trial of the suit it was admitted on behalf of the appellant that no water connection had been installed in the respondent's house.

2. As the respondent did not produce the person whom he had employed to supply water as witness in evidence the amount of Rs.3,000 claimed in respect of payment made to him was not allowed by the learned trial Court. However, his claim of Rs.17,000 touching mental and physical sufferance was decreed. the first appeal having been dismissed the appellant has availed of the second appeal to this Court.

3. The respondent had sixteen years' standing at the Bar when he instituted suit. There is no reason to distrust his testimony. The mental and physical agony suffered by him during eight years when the appellant did not supply him water connection and instead pestered him with false billing despite his remonstrances can very well be imagined and the amount of Rs.17,000 in terms of quantum of damages to compensate for his sufferance can hardly be said to be on the high side.

4. The principles touching assessment of damages enunciated in Abdur Rashid v. Burmah‑Shell Oil Store and Distribution Company of Pakistan (P L D 1966 Kar. 126), Muhammadi Steamship v. Dada (P L D 1966 Kar. 133) and Anwar Ali Khan v. Abdul Sattar Abu Bakar (P L D 1968 Kar. 154) referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant, have bearing on commercial transaction and cannot be extended for ascertaining damages in respect of physical and mental agony and distress suffered by the respondent.

5. In view of the above there is no substance in this appeal which is dismissed with costs. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.