1. As damages were claimed due to the alleged violation of contract, so, learned counsel for the complainant was required to advance arguments regarding maintainability of instant complaint before this Court.
2. Contention of learned counsel for the complainant is that as respondent has not completed the construction work as agreed upon inspite of receipt of heavy amount in advance, so, his said act amounts to providing of faulty services and as such instant complaint has been rightly filed before this Court.
3. After perusal of the complainant and the law on the subject, I do not find myself in agreement with learned counsel for the complainant. In the instant complaint allegation against the respondent is that he has not performed his part of contract as construction work was not completed. There is no allegation against the respondent of substandard and defective construction work, done so for, in the complaint and also in legal notice. Complainant has requested for return of advance money Rs.204928/- besides Rs.1,10,000/- as monetary loss etc., because of the violation of the contract for which jurisdiction lies with the Civil Court, non-performance of the contract could not be termed as providing of faulty services. Reliance is placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Lahore High Court Lahore in FAO-502/10 case titled Sultan Hafeez etc. Vs. Azhar ul Hassan etc. In view of what has been discussed above, this Court lacks jurisdiction, so, the instant complaint is not found maintainable before this Court and is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after its due completion.