' On 1-9-1993 the petitioner filed a suit against the respondent. In the plaint, it was stated that the petitioner filed an application for obtaining electric connection for his house which was registered on 23-9-1987. After the process, a demand notice was issued to the petitioner and he deposited a sum of Rs.1,154 on 26-6-1988. Thereafter, the meter was installed but it was found that the material mentioned in the demand notice and paid for by the petitioner has not been installed. He requested the S.D.O. Concerned to install the requisite equipments but the needful was not done. A written application was then filed on 6-10-1990 with the reminder on 10-11-1990 whereupon the S.D.O. Issued a letter stating that the material installed is of the value of Rs.1,302 whereas the demand notice was for Rs.1,154 and that the petitioner should make a deposit of the remaining Rs.156. The petitioner protested by filing an application before the XEN, WAPDA, but no action was taken. He then filed an application before the learned Federal Ombudsman who recorded findings on 24-7-1991 directing WAPDA to install the material mentioned in the demand notice and to report compliance by 30-9-1991. It was only then that the requisite material was installed. It was complained that because of the malfeasance and misfeasance of the employees of the respondent, the petitioner had to go through torment from September, 1988 to 1-10-1991. He claimed a sum of Rs.25,000 by way of damages. The respondent in its written statement took the plea that the connection was installed but the petitioner demanded that some more equipments be installed whereupon a notice was issued for payment of additional amount. The petitioner filed an application before the learned Federal Ombudsman and the needful was done. It was then stated that during the proceedings before the learned Ombudsman a compromise was effected between the parties and the petitioner promised that he will not claim any damages or make any other claim. Following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got neither any cause of action nor locus standi to file the suit? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit on account of his words and conduct? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is not maintainable against the defendant in view of the provision of WAPDA Act, 1958? OPD
(5) Whether the suit has been filed with mala fide intention. If so, to what legal effect? OPD
(6) Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under section 10 of C.P.C.? OPD
(7) Whether the defendant is entitled to recover special costs under section 35-A of C.P.C.? If so, to what extent? OPD
(8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.25,000 damages, as prayed for from the defendant? OPP
(9) Relief.
' Evidence of the parties was recorded. Issues Nos.1 to 7 were decided against the respondent.
Under issue No.8, it was observed that although the petitioner had to seek remedy against the maladministration of the employees of the respondent but since "no defamation" took place the damages cannot be granted. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 2-7-1998.
The first appeal was heard by learned District Judge, Khushab, who proceeded to observe that since the employees have not been impleaded, the respondent cannot be held liable for damages and further proof of damages has not been given. The appeal was dismissed on 27-4-2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Courts below have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by dismissing the suit when the tortuous acts of the respondent stood proved. Further states that both the learned Courts below have proceeded to rely on the alleged compromise Exhs.D.1 and D.3 in violation of Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 as interpreted by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Sikandar Hayat and 4 others v. Master Fazal Karim PLD 1971 SC 730. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand has tried to support the impugned judgments and decrees for the reasons recorded therein.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. As noted by me above, both the learned Courts below have found that the employees of the respondent, because of their acts of malfeasance and misfeasance, caused agony to the petitioner. It is a matter of record that the application was filed in the year 1987. The demand notice was issued in the year 1988 and the amount was deposited. Now Mukhtar Hussain, SDO, D.W.1 has admitted that the demand notice was issued on 11-6-1988 and the material was valued by the respondent. He has also admitted that material was not installed in accordance with the demand notice. He volunteered that the material available in store was installed while the remaining was installed on the directive of the learned Ombudsman.
4. It will be seen that the learned Courts below have conveniently ignored that even in this suit, the respondent took a false plea by stating that the petitioner demanded additional material to be installed whereas it stands admitted in the witness-box that the complete material had not been installed. It will further be seen that the petitioner was made to go from pillar to post for obtaining such a basic necessity as an electricity connection in his house. Suchlike attitude of a public utility Company can never be condoned on any principle of law or equity.
5. Now coming to the reasons stated by the learned Courts below for denying relief, so far as the learned trial Court is concerned, perhaps the only tort which came in his mind was one of defamation. The complaint made by the petitioner was absolutely specific and unambiguous. It was detailed in the plaint and then established not only in his own evidence but in the evidence of the respondent itself. So far as the learned Court of appeal is concerned, it is by now well-settled that an employer is fully responsible and liable for the tortuous acts of its employees i.e. What is called vicarious liability. It is further settled that where tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable, all of them or each or any of them can be sued. There was nothing wrong with the suit as correctly held by the learned trial Court. Impleadment of the employees was not a legal necessity. So far as the quantum of damages is concerned, in tort, the rule approved since ages is rule of thumb.
6. Now coming to the matter of compromise, I am in complete agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said 'documents i.e. Exhs.D1. And D.3 could not even be looked into for the simple reason that the petitioner in the witness-box denied having filed any application and he was not at all confronted with. Any of the said documents in the witness-box in accordance with the law contained in Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and the rule laid down in the said case of Sikandar Hayat and 4 others by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.
7. This civil revision accordingly is allowed. Both the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner is decreed in the sum of Rs.10,000 in his favour and against the respondent with costs throughout.