Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 122.
Instituted on : 13.03.2019.
Decided on : 03.08.2022
Mr. Deepanshu Jakhar s/o Mr. Raj Kumar R/o 1523, Kamla Nagar, Rohtak-124001.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Near Model School, Rohtak-124001.
- SDO PWD Department, Near TB Hospital, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: None for complainant.
Sh.K.K.Luthra, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Ashish Tehlan, ADA alongwith Sh. Sunil Clerk for opposite
party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that the Municipal Corporation provides certain authorized gaps in the dividers so as to enable the public to cross the road. However, the safety was ensured by provision of warning signage or speed breakers ahead of the crossing. But some miscreants have illegally removed the road-dividers at various places causing hazards. Pursuant to the Municipal corporations Act 1951 and the Consumer Protection Act section 2(O), the Municipal Corporation Rohtak is under a statutory obligation to maintain and to provide safe & hazard free road to the general public and to the motor vehicle users in particular. On 18 October 2018, complainant was driving his scooter on Jhajjar road and was coming from Tau Park to home. There was such a concealed unauthorized gap in the stated piece of road-divider near PWD Godown and Tau Park, shown in attached photographs. As there was no warning signage or speed breaker ahead of the unauthorized gap, complainant kept moving at a fast speed. Suddenly a cyclist came in front of his scooter giving him no time to slow down. Consequently, the scooter fell resulting in serious injuries to complainant. After the fall from scooter, complainant became unconscious. Someone took him to hospital where he remained in coma for nearly 15 days. The hospitalization and his medical treatment resulted in huge expenditure in addition to mental pain and agony for the whole family. Complainant spent a sum of Rs.399717/- on medical bills, suffered damages to the scooter amounting to Rs.4000/-, damages for the loss of enjoyment of life and for pain and suffering in the sum of Rs.75000/-. Complainant requested the opposite parties for the appropriate action but in vain. Complainant also served a registered legal notice dated 23.01.2019 upon the opposite parties but any heed was not paid by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.399717/- of medical bills, Rs.4000/- for scooter, Rs.75000/- as damages for mental agony, harassment alongwith litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed their separate written reply. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that the concerned road relates to PWD(B & R) because it was made by PWD(B & R). This road does not relate to the answering opposite party. Respondent no.1 has no concern with the road in question. It is, therefore, prayed that complaint may kindly ne dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that it is denied that there are unauthorized gaps in the dividers at various places which cause potential hazards. Where there are gaps in the dividers, the same are provided with the Gap-in-median signboards. It is further submitted that in case the road dividers are disturbed at any place, then even also the maintenance of the same is carried on time and they are maintained in order to avoid any mis-happening. Lawful action is also taken against such miscreants. There is no breach of duty on the part of officials of opposite party no.2, the officials are discharging their duty with full respect and obedience. The complainant himself is narrating and admitting the fact that he was moving at fast speed and thus violating the rules and Regulations of Motor Vehicle Act. It is the duty of the complainant himself to move as per prescribed speed limits at such busy area therefore the complainant himself invited the action to be taken against him for driving at a fast speed. Moreover, complainant does not show any record to show that there was collision of vehicle at the alleged point and the complainant suffered injuries. Just to make a false claim, the complainant has taken the photographs of this place with malafide intention. The fact qua the cyclist is self concocted and fraudulent fact. The warning signs and speed breakers are made as per the requirement and safety norms. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P28 and closed his evidence on 26.03.2021. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/B, and closed his evidence on 30.11.2021. On the other hand, opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, and closed his evidence on 16.08.2020.
4. At the time of arguments complainant did not appear, so we have perused the documents placed on record by the complainant and also heard learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, both the parties have placed on record relevant documents. Respondent no.1 has submitted that the concerned road relates to PWD(B & R) because it was made by PWD(B & R). This road does not relate to the answering opposite party. Respondent no.1 has no concern with the road in question. Respondent no.2 has placed on record only affidavit of Sh. Vijay Dalal SDE Provincial Sub Division no.2, PWD B & R, Rohtak. The complainant has pleaded that due to unauthorized gap between the road-divider, which was having no signboard, he received injuries and spent an amount of Rs.399717/- on his treatment. He further submitted that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as they did not install any signboards on the gaps between the dividers and as such opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
6. We have minutely perused the written statement filed by the respondents. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case we came into the conclusion that respondent no.2 failed to place on record any site plan of the road. Opposite party No.2 further failed to place on record the sanctioned crossing/gaps. On the other hand, complainant has placed on record some photographs to prove that the illegal gap between the dividers/crossing and respondents have not installed any warning sign of unauthorized gap on the alleged spot. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2. As per the complainant he had spent an amount of Rs.399717/- on his treatment but to prove the same he has only placed on record bills amounting to Rs.290563/- Ex.P7 to ex.P24. As such he is entitled for this amount only.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay Rs.290563/-(Rupees two lac ninety thousand five hundred and sixty three only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.03.2019 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
03.08.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
