' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The suit for recovery, brought by the appellant against the respondents, has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16-3-1998.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant instituted a suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs.30,00,000 against the respondents claiming that, he was the subcontractor appointed by the respondent corporation under an agreement for the construction of certain workshop and offices etc. At the site of Sargodha Quarry, Motorway Project Section-II, and had completed his work to the utter satisfaction of the corporation, 'but the amount of Rs.1,400,000 has not been paid to him, which amount has been misappropriated by the Cashier of the respondent Corporation; besides that, certain extra work was conducted by the appellant, for which he has not been paid, and the claim in this behalf is Rs.5,50,000; Rs.50,000 is being asked as the expenses on account of the legal charges and Rs.10,00,000 as compensation for the mental torture and the ailment of the appellant, which according to him occurred on account of the nonpayment by the respondents. The matter was contested by the respondents; the Cashier of the corporation namely J.H. Park, who was impleaded as defendant No.3, was proceeded ex parte. However, the learned trial Court after framing of the issues and recording of the ,evidence, had dismissed the suit.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that, two cheques dated 9-12-1992 and 28-2- 1993 were issued by the Daewoo Corporation amounting to Rs.5,38,170 and Rs.16,61,830 respectively, but at the time of encashment, Mr. J.H. Park, who was the then employee i.e. Cashier of the respondent Corporation, only gave Rs.2,00,000 and Rs.6,00,000 respectively to the appellant and took away the remaining amount, thus, the Daewoo Corporation under the rule of vicarious liability is liable to make the payment of such amount to the appellant. As far as the extra work and the appellant's claim of Rs.5,50,000 is concerned, it has not been established on the record, if the appellant was not paid in this regard. For the damages on account of mental torture and ailment, it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that, because the payment was not made, therefore, the appellant faced financial crunch, and due to severe tension, he fell ill; suffered heart- attack and remained hospitalized and thus, is entitled to Rs.10,00,000 as compensation etc.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main claim of the appellant is for Rs.14,00,000, which according to him was retained by J.H. Park, the Cashier of the respondent Corporation. However, when the evidence has been scanned, we find that the cheques dated 9-12- 1992 and 28-2-1993 were got encashed by the appellant. It is not on the instruction of the respondent-Corporation that, any amount was paid to J.H. Park. However, if due to his friendship or for certain other reasons, best known to the appellant, he paid some money to J.H. Park, which he had admittedly received from the Corporation, the respondent Corporation cannot be held responsible on the rule of vicarious responsibility. This is an independent transaction between the appellant and J.H. Park, having no implication qua the respondent Corporation.
5. As regards the extra work is concerned, we are not satisfied and even the appellant has failed to prove on the record, if such payment has not been made to him. Thus, as no case of any illegality or wrong, on the part of the respondent Corporation has been proved, resultantly, we find that the appellant even if, having fallen ill, but was not due to any action or inaction on part of the respondent Corporation, therefore, is not entitled to any damages or legal expenses. Resultantly, this appeal has no merits and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.