AURANGZEB, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2015 passed by the learned trial court, whereby the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. In essence, the appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit against the respondents/defendants for recoveries etc fully detailed in the headnote of the plaint. The respondents/defendants appeared before the learned trial court and contested the suit by filing their written statement. After framing of issues, recording evidence of the parties and hearing arguments of learned counsel for parties vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.2015 dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff, hence, the instant appeal.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant/plaintiff instituted a civil suit for the recovery of a substantial amount in damages against the respondents/defendants, alleging illegal termination of his services, damage to his professional reputation, and mental anguish. To support his claim, the appellant/plaintiff produced and examined three witnesses before the learned trial court, namely Zain ul Abdeen, Adil Sadiq, and Abdur Razaq, who appeared as PW-1 to PW-3 respectively. All three witnesses, being paint dealers conducting business in Abbottabad, testified regarding their business interactions with the appellant/plaintiff in connection with the paint trade.
5. Furthermore, the appellant/plaintiff himself appeared as PW-4 and produced his educational documents, marked as Ex:PW4/1 to Ex:PW4/4. During his comprehensive examination-in-chief, the appellant/plaintiff reiterated the facts stated in the plaint and also submitted and exhibited various performance evaluation certificates and related documents to demonstrate his professional competence and the adverse impact of his termination.
6. During cross-examination, the appellant/ plaintiff conceded that he had executed an employment agreement with the respondent/ defendant company, Akzo Nobel Pakistan Ltd., dated 21.04.2010. He further acknowledged receiving three months' salary in lieu of notice upon termination, in accordance with the terms of the revised agreement. He admitted that the said agreement had been revised in 2010, and under the revised terms, he was indeed entitled to three months' salary in lieu of notice. However, he also admitted that neither the revised agreement dated 2010 was annexed with the plaint nor produced in evidence. Notably, the appellant/plaintiff confirmed that Ex:PW4/11 was an agreement between himself and ICI Pakistan Ltd., and not with Akzo Nobel Pakistan Ltd., which was his employer under the revised agreement dated 21.04.2010. He also admitted that the defendants No. 1 to 6 were not parties to Ex:PW4/11, nor were they personally involved in the execution of the revised employment agreement dated 21.04.2010.
7. It is an admitted fact that the appellant/plaintiff was employed by Akzo Nobel Pakistan Ltd. under a valid employment contract that specified the terms and conditions of service. Initially, the appellant/plaintiff had joined ICI Pakistan Ltd. in the year 2001 and was a signatory to the employment agreement Ex:PW4/D-1, which included clause 7 pertaining to termination of service.
Upon the transfer of his employment from ICI Pakistan Ltd. to Akzo Nobel Pakistan Ltd., a fresh employment agreement was executed between the parties. As per the revised agreement dated 21.04.2010, particularly clause 12, it was expressly agreed that "this agreement, if not previously terminated under the provisions of clauses 10 and 11, may be terminated by either party at any time by giving three months' prior notice in writing to the other party or by payment in lieu of such notice."
8. With regard to the appellant/plaintiff's claim for damages on account of alleged loss of reputation, mental anguish, and emotional distress, it is important to underscore that in claims for damages, the burden of proof lies squarely on the claimant. The party seeking damages is legally required to establish not only the incidence of the alleged harm (factum) but also the extent or value of that harm (quantum), through the production of clear, credible, and convincing evidence.
Courts are not empowered to decree damages based on mere allegations; each assertion made in the plaint must be substantiated by independent and specific evidence addressing every material point.
9. In the present case, the appellant/plaintiff, when appearing before the learned trial court as a witness, made admissions that significantly undermine his claim. He candidly acknowledged that the company never published any advertisement nor issued any letter to dealers or third parties containing adverse or defamatory remarks about him. Additionally, he admitted that in Exhibit PI/1/2/24, the respondents/defendants did not express any negative or damaging comments concerning his character or conduct.
10. It is pertinent to mention that there are two primary categories of damages recognized in civil law general damages and special damages. The term general damages refer to losses that arise as the immediate, direct, and proximate result of the wrongful act complained of. These damages are presumed by law and typically encompass non-pecuniary harms such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and, in certain cases, loss of future earning capacity due to lasting or permanent injury. General damages are not capable of exact calculation and are usually it assessed by the court based on the overall circumstances of the case, applying a broad rule of thumb.
11. In contrast, special damages refer to actual, quantifiable monetary losses that, although not necessarily a direct or inevitable result of the wrongful act, arise due to particular circumstances or conditions specific to the case. These may include out-of-pocket expenses, medical treatment costs, loss of income, and other financial losses sustained up to the date of the trial. Unlike general damages, special damages must be specifically pleaded in the plaint and strictly proved through credible evidence, such as receipts, medical bills, salary records, or expert testimony.
12. It is a settled principle of law that in actions involving personal injuries, courts differentiate between these two types of damages. General damages are awarded on a discretionary basis, guided by judicial experience and precedent, whereas special damages require a detailed evidentiary foundation and must be clearly substantiated by the claimant. The overarching objective in awarding such damages is to restore the injured party, as far as possible, to the position they would have been in had the wrongful act not occurred. The apex court in case titled Abdul Majeed Khan versus Tawseen Abdul Haleem and others (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 80) has held that:- "3. At this stage, it is to be noted that there are two types of damages namely; 'special damages' and 'general damages'. The term 'general damages' refers to the special character, condition or circumstances which accrue from the immediate, direct and approximate result of the wrong complained of. Similarly, the term 'special damages' is defined as the actual but not necessarily the result of injury complained of. It follows as a natural and approximate consequence in a particular case, by reason of special circumstances or condition. It is settled that in an action for personal injuries, the general damages are governed by the rule of thumb whereas the special damages are required to be specifically pleaded and proved. In the case of British Transport Commission v. Gourley [(1956) AC 185] it has been held that special damages have to be specially pleaded and proved. This consists of out-of- pocket expenses and loss of earnings incurred down to the date of trial, and is generally capable of substantially exact calculation. The general damages are those which the law implies even if not specially pleaded. This includes compensation for pain and suffering and the like, and, if the injuries suffered are such as to lead to continuing or permanent disability, compensation for loss of earning power in the future. The basic principle so far as loss of earnings and out-of-pocket expenses are concerned is that the injured person should be placed in the same financial position, so far as can be done by an award of money, as he would have been had the accident not happened. The same principle has been referred to in the case of Qazi Dost Muhammad v. Malik Dost Muhammad (1997 CLC 546), in the following terms:-- "It is a settled principle of law that in respect of special damages it is the duty of an aggrieved person to prove each item of the loss, on the basis of evidence and as far as general damages are concerned, relating to mental torture, defamation etc. those are to be measured, following the 'Rule of Thumb', according to which, discretion rests with the Court to calculate such compensation keeping in view the attending circumstances of the case. As far as inconvenience is concerned, this item can be considered while assessing the general damages."
In the case of Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Sh. Nawab Din 2003 CLC 991 the principles for ascertaining the quantum of general and special damages have been discussed in the following words:-- "13. Principle for ascertaining the quantum of general and special damages is laid down in the leading case of Hadly v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 341 which clearly provides the distinction between the two. The provisions of section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872 are not much different for purpose of practical application. Claim for damages was rejected as being too remote in the case of Banco de Portugal v. Waterlow and Sons Ltd. (1932) A.C. 452 and again in the case of Commell Lairds and Co. v. Managanese Bronze and Brass Co. (1993) 2 KB 141. General damages naturally arising according to the usual course of things from the breach of contract are recoverable in the ordinary circumstances. Special damages are awarded in cases, as may reasonably, be supposed to have been in contemplation of both parties at the time of contract. The law does not record consequential damages arising of delay in respect of money as one in the case of Graham v.
Campbell. (1877) 7 Ch. D. 494 and Urquhart Lindsay and Co. v. Eastern Bank Ltd. (1992) 1 K.B. 318.
Same view has been taken by honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Syed Ahmad Saeed Kirmani v. Messrs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. 1993 SCMR 441."
While relying upon the above said judgment, this Court in the case of Azizullah Sheikh v. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. (2009 SCMR 276) has held as under: "6. The petitioners did not produce any evidence to show that in fact they suffered any loss due to breach of contract. Solitary statement of petitioner No.1 is not sufficient to decree the colossal suit amount, as P.W.2 did not state anything about the damages. Besides the reasons advanced by the learned High Court (single Bench and Division Bench) for declining the total claim of the petitioners, we may add here that the petitioners through production of evidence comprehensively failed to prove that due to breach of contract they are in fact entitled to damages and to what extent, which are sine qua non for the grant of damages under section 73 of the Contract Act. Thus we are clear in our mind that the petitioners could not prove that they suffered any loss. They also failed to prove, through production of evidence on record, that they were entitled for decree of the total amount claimed in the suit."
In the case of Mrs. Alia Tareen v. Amanullah Khan (PLD 2005 SC 99), it has been held that in a suit for damages, the wrong done to the plaintiff must be proved to be the immediate, direct and proximate result of the act or acts attributed to the defendants."
13. Furthermore, the respondents/defendants cannot be held personally liable for any damages allegedly arising from their actions. If any liability were to arise, it would be the company, Akzo Nobel, that could potentially be held vicariously liable for the acts of its employees or agents, provided that such damages were properly pleaded and substantiated by the appellant. In this case, the appellant had no valid cause of action against the individual respondents. Rather, any such cause of action would properly lie against the company, Akzo Nobel. However, as previously discussed, the appellant failed to bring a claim against Akzo Nobel, and therefore no claim for damages can be sustained against the respondents in their personal capacities. In this regard reliance is placed on the case titled Pakistan Television Corporation versus Noor Sanat Shah (2023 SCMR 616).
14. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of any cogent or corroborative evidence to demonstrate actual loss of reputation or mental suffering, the claim for such damages remains unproven and is therefore legally untenable.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to demonstrate any illegality, perversity, or material irregularity committed by the learned trial court in rendering the impugned judgment and decree. The findings of the trial court appear to be well- reasoned, duly supported by the evidence on record, and in accordance with the settled principles of law. As such, there is no justification for interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the instant appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.