BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/645 of 9.8.2010 

                                                Decided on:          7.9.2011

Sohan Lal Shorey son of Parshotam Dass resident of H.No.E-10/7,Infront of H.No.2907, behind Sindhi Trunk House, Rajpuram Town, District Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 Municipal Council,Rajpura, through its Executive Officer

2.                 S.D.O.Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Guru Nanak Colony, Rajpura, District Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.R.C.Sharma, Advocate

For opposite parties:     Sh.K.D.Sharma, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          It is the case of the complainant that he is the permanent resident of Rajpura and is having a sewerage connection no.2032, to have been issued by Municipal Corporation Rajpura i.e. op no.1. He has been regularly depositing the sewerage charges with op no.1.

2.       It is further averred that the sewerage line was laid by the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board and now the same is under the control and management of op no.1.

3.       `The sewerage line passing opposite to the house of the complainant was lying blocked since May 2010 and which resulted into the giving of foul smell. The dirty water of the sewerage had also over flown into the street. The complainant approached op no.1 on 28.6.2010, 1.7.2010, 3.7.2010, 5.7.2010, 7.7.2010, 9.7.2010, 12.7.2010 and 16.7.2010 and lodged the complaint in the register meant for the same as maintained by op no.1 but nothing was done to remove the blockage in the sewerage line.

4.       It is further averred that the complainant made written complaints to op no.2 on 19.7.2010 and 26.7.2010 but even then the blockage had not been removed and rather the position had  worsened.

5.       Describing the act of the ops to be a deficiency of service as also negligence because the raining season being in the offing , it was  apprehended that it may cause the spreading of epidemic in the locality and accordingly the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the ops to remove the blockage in the sewerage line in the locality of the complainant and to award him a compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/-for causing harassment and the mental agony to him.

6.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written versions. It is not denied that the complainant is a holder of the sewerage connection no.2032 to have been issued by op no.1. Similarly it is no denied that the sewerage line passing opposite to the house of the complainant had got blocked in May 2010.Similarly it is admitted that a complaint was lodged by the complainant in the register maintained by op no.2 regarding the blockage of the sewerage line.

7.       It is however, the plea taken up by the ops that due to rainy season and untraceable debris the  system of the sewerage in the main line was blocked and when the main line gets blocked, the branch sewerage lines automatically get blocked. Op no.2 had done the level best efforts to clear the main sewerage line and when the main sewerage line was cleared, the branch sewerage lines were also cleared.

8.       It is further averred that the ops had deputed a team of the officials to make a regular check up of the sewerage line of the different localities of the city Rajpura and they are doing their duty properly. However, some persons of the city used to throw the garbage like polythene filled with the garbage and dung of the animals in the sewerage system which resulted into chocking of the sewerage line. In that way, there was no negligence on the part of the ops. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

9.       In support of his claim, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit, Ex.C1, alongwith the documents, Exs.C2 to C16 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

10.     On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.RW1/A, the sworn affidavit of Surinder Kumar Ranga,SDO of op no.2 alongwith document,Ex.R1 and closed their evidence.

11.     The ops filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

12.     It is not disputed by the ops that a complaint was made by the complainant in the office of op no.2 with regard to the blockage of the sewerage line falling in front of his house and as per  the evidence led by the ops, the sewerage blockage at 2907 E-10/7 was cleared on 25.8.2010 as would appear from the duty slip,Ex.R1 dated 25.8.2010 bearing  Sr.No.101.

13.     The ops have not denied the plea taken up by the complainant that the sewerage line falling in front of his house had got blocked in May 2010 and that he had approached op no.1 on different dates like 28.6.2010, 1.7.2010, 3.7.2010, 5.7.2010, 7.7.2010, 9.7.2010, 12.7.2010 and 16.7.2010 and even as stated by the complainant Sohan Lal in his sworn affidavit,Ex.C1/A and further corroborated by the sworn affidavit,Ex.C16 of Ashwani Kumar also a resident of House No.2904 behind Sindhi Trunk House, Rajpura. In that way, it would appear that it took three months to redress the grievance of the complainant for the ops.

14.     We can well imagine the nuisance suffered by the complainant and other residents of the locality because of the blockage of the sewerage line because when a sewerage line gets chocked for one or the other reason, a foul smell starts flowing in the area, thereby making the life of the residents of the locality a hell.

15.     We can not accept the plea taken up by the ops that they have made a team of the officials who make a regular check up of sewerage line in the different localities because they should have produced the very roster prepared by op no.1 disclosing the names of the specific officials having performed the said duty, in the absence of which it would appear that the complaint made by a resident was taken very casually by op no.1 and that is why the complainant had to approach this Forum for reminding op no.1 about its duty which is no less sacrosanct  because the cleanliness of the locality qua the disposal of the sewerage water is very much necessary for maintaining the health of the residents of the locality.

16.     The complainant has led the abundent evidence to show the efforts made by him to get the grievance redressed by the ops and which consists of Ex.C5, the copy of the letter sent on 26.7.2010 to op no.2 with copies there of  to the Director Local Bodies, Punjab,Chandigarh, Principal Secretary, Local Bodies, Punjab and the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, which were  sent through registered post, the postal receipts being Exs.C6 to C9. Op no.2 received the said letter as would appear from Ex.C3, the copy of the AD receipt. Ex.C10 is the copy of the another letter dated 19.7.2010, sent by the complainant to op no.2 through registered post, the postal receipt being,Ex.C11 which was also received by op no.2 as would appear from the AD receipt,Ex.C4.

17.     The complainant has also produced the photographs,Exs.C12 to C15 to show the over flowing of the sewerage  line with the garbage piled near the man hole.

18.     As an up shot of our aforesaid discussion, we find that it was certainly a deficiency of service on the part of the ops in not having attended to the complaint of the complainant for a period of  about three months which certainly resulted into a harassment and the mental agony to the complainant and the residents of the locality. We accordingly in order to realize the ops about their responsibility towards the citizens accept the complaint and give a direction to op no.1 to prepare a list of the officials to be deployed for doing the work of clearing the sewerage line qua the dates and timings of their duty and to display the same outside the office of op no.1 for public notice. The public may also be given the facility of making a complaint on telephone and the very telephone number for lodging the complaint be also displayed on the notice board so that the official who is found not to be attending to the complaint or performing his duty in the matter of clearing the sewerage line is taken to task. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the complaint, we accept the complaint in the aforesaid manner and direct the op no.1 to pay a sum ofRs.5000/- to the complainant for the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him at the hands of op no.1, within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced.

Dated:7.9.2011

                                                Neelam Gupta                  D.R.Arora

                                                Member                            President