1. ' The plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of Rs.7,56,000 being the loss and damages caused to the plaintiff on account of disconnection of the electric supply by the defendant.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is running ice factory on Plot No,W/S/20, Block 20, Federal 'A' Area, Karachi and due to some dispute about the outstanding dues the defendant disconnected electric supply of the plaintiff's ice factory on or about 3-5-1981. Being aggrieved by the disconnection of electric supply plaintiff filed Suit No,186 of 1983 in this Court. On 2-6-1983, by consent of the parties plaintiff undertook to deposit a sum of Rs.150,000 and the defendant undertook to restore the electric supply on receipt of the said amount. It is further alleged in the plaint that the defendant all of a sudden on 2-8-1983 disconnected electric supply of the plaintiff in complete contravention of the compromise terms and in total disregard of the consent order passed by this Court. After disconnection of the electricity on 2-8-1983, plaintiff filed an application being C.M.A. No,2471 of 1983 on 4-8-1983 in Suit No,186 of 1983 for restoration of electricity. While the said application was pending, the defendant restored the electric supply of the plaintiff's factory on 7-8-1983, however, production in the factory of plaintiff could start on 10-3-1983. Plaintiff claims a sum of Rs.7,56,000 being the loss suffered due to unlawful disconnection of electric supply under various heads. Defendant filed written statement and stated that the electric supply was disconnected on account of default in payment of current bill.
3. ' On the basis of pleadings between the parties following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the suit is barred under section 54-C of the Electricity Act?
4. ' Whether the disconnection of electricity on 2-8-1983 was in breach of the consent order dated 2- 8-1983 in Suit No,186 of 1983 and the undertaking of the defendant in Court therein? If so, what is its effect?
(2) Whether the disconnection of electricity was justified? If so, how and to what effect?
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages of Rs.5,56,000 as claimed in Annexure 'D' to the plaint or any other sum?
(4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to general damages of Rs.2,00,000?
(5) What should the decree be?
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In support of their contentions, the plaintiff appeared in witness-box and on behalf of the defendant Mr. Ahmed Mohiuddin, Controller of Billing of defendant was examined by the defendant. I have gone through the pleadings and evidence on record. The defendant's Advocate did not press Issue No,1 and there is no need to give findings on it. My findings on the other issues are as under:-- Issues Nos. 2 and 3 In the affidavit in evidence filed by the plaintiff it is categorically stated that the defendant disconnected electric supply on 2-8-1983 without any justification in complete contravention of the compromise terms and in disregard of the consent order passed by this Court. It is further stated that no notice was served upon the plaintiff before disconnection of the electric supply. In cross- examination of the plaintiff the defendant did not put any question that the electric supply was disconnected on account of non-payment of electric bills and further defendant failed to produce any such bill, which remained unpaid on 2-8-1983, the date when the electric supply was disconnected. The electric supply was restored by a consent order passed in Suit No,186 of 1983. No notice was served before disconnection of the electric supply nor any intimation or application was made in Court pointing out that the plaintiff had failed to pay outstanding dues, justifying the disconnection of the electric supply. The disconnection of electric supply on 2-8-1983 by the defendant was without any justification and lawful authority.
6. Issues Nos.4 to 6 The plaintiff in his evidence stated that the electric supply was disconnected on 2-8-1983 and the same was restored on 7-8-1983, however, production of ice could only be started in the plaintiff's factory 10-8-1983 and claimed damages in respect of 8 days, during which period plaintiff's factory remained without production. This portion of evidence has not been disputed by the defendant in his cross-examination nor through evidence of his witness. In support of its claim of damages, plaintiff produced extract from the register of sales from 26-7-1983 to 2-8-1983. To establish delay, sale in his factory and as per said statement average sale was Rs.9,500 per day. Plaintiff produced extract of sales for the period from 3-8-1983 to 10-8-1983 to show that no sale could take place due to non-availability of electric supply during this period. The plaintiff produced extract of sale from 11-8-1983 to 18-8-1983, from the perusal of which it appears that the average sale has been reduced from Rs.9,500 to Rs.4,500 which, according to the plaintiff, was due to diversion of its clients on account of the closure of factory. The plaintiff also claimed salary and wages of labour amounting to Rs.30,000 for 10 days. Defendant has not challenged the correctness of all these extracts and amounts claimed therein and same were exhibited without any objection. In my view the plaintiff is not entitled to the loss of sale after the electric supply was restored or at least after the factory was put in production. The plaintiff is also not entitled for the loss of customers for which the plaintiff claimed Rs.40,000 as the plaintiff has not produced any of customers as a witness in support of its contention. Likewise the plaintiff is also not entitled for the salary of the labour as none of the labourers was examined. The defendant in his evidence not stated a single word that the plaintiff has not suffered loss on account of disconnection of the electricity. The law cannot recognize C any loss not naturally flowing from the breach of contract and plaintiff's claims regarding loss of production and loss of customers are too remote and cannot be granted under section 73 of the Contract Act.
7. ' The plaintiff is entitled for the damages during the period factory of the plaintiff remained out of production and I accordingly E decree the suit of the plaintiff in the sum of Rs.76,000 (Rupees seventy-six thousand ) with no order as to costs.