Haryana

StateCommission

A/110/2015

STATE OF HARYANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NAND LAL - Opp.Party(s)

GOVT.PLEADER

24 Jul 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                       

First Appeal No.110 of 2015

Date of Institution:21.01.2015

 And 02.02.2015

                                                          Date of Decision: 24.07.2015

 

1.      State of Haryana, through Collector, Hisar.

2.      Executive engineer, Public Health engineering Division No.1, Kaimrari road, Hisar.

     …..Appellants

                                                Versus

Nand Lal aged 67 years S/o Gopal Dass r/o village Pattan  Tehsil and District Hisar.

         …..Respondent

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Balwant Punia SDO of the Appellants.

                   Ms.Nancy Gupta, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

                                      O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:

It was alleged by complainant that he was getting water supply from old line passing through the street near his house.  After sometime water stopped flowing/passing through that pipe and his connection was shifted to other line.  Due to increase in requirement of water, respondents-Opposite Parties (O.Ps.) laid parallel water supply line in the street. Due to negligence and poor maintenance of O.Ps. water started leaking from four points. This fact was brought to notice of O.P.No.1, but, he did not get the same repaired. Due to seepage of water cracks developed in his building. Sh.R.K.Jaglan, approved structural engineer and valuer, visited the spot and inspected his house on 16.11.2011. He submitted report on 20.11.2011. As per his opinion the building was unsafe for human habitation and the loss was to the tune of Rs.5,26,813/-.  Damage to building was visible from the photographs.  He requested O.Ps. to compensate him, but, to no avail.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and it was alleged that 4” PVC pipe line was sanctioned for supply of the water. The said pipe line was still in working order. Complainant and other villagers were supplied water through the same.  To supply water to the house situated at higher area a new 4” AC pipe line was laid.  That pipe was for the higher area of village only.  Complainant shifted his old connection to the new pipe on his own without permission of the department.  He made two holes in the new pressure pipe line and they started leaking.  Leaked water started gushing into the soakage pits constructed by complainant adjacent to his building line since no sewerage system exists in the village and the gushed water seeped into earth and might be into the foundation of the house due to which his house started settling causing damage to the building. The mischief was played by complainant himself.  When the fact of leakage came to the notice of the department warning letter No.4139 dated 17.11.2011 was issued to the complainant because he not only tempered with the water pipe line, but, also wasted government water.  He also caused damage to the public street.  The leakage was immediately plugged. In this way the fault was on the part of the complainant and not the department.  Objections about locus standi, estopple not approaching Forum with clean hands etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated  22.12.2014 and ordered as under:-

“Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,26,813/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 09.04.2012, till payment. Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- for his harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses of Rs.3300/- against the opposite parties.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellants-O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that  from the perusal of the photographs Ex.C-6 to C-20 it is clear that his house was having cracks and was badly damaged.  As per report Ex.C-3, it is not fit for human habitation and Rs.7,52,590/- are to be spent for re-construction.  Total damage assessed by the expert is Rs.5,26,813/-.  O.Ps. did not maintain water-line properly and due to seepage his house was damaged.  District Forum rightly allowed the loss assessed  by the expert and appeal be dismissed. 

7.      However the loss might have been to the extent of Rs.5,26,813/- as assessed by the expert, but, main point is to be decided in this case is who is responsible for this loss.  It is alleged by the complainant that there was leakage in the pipeline passing by the side of his house due to which this damage has occurred. 

8.      On the other hand O.Ps. have alleged that when new pipe line was laid for higher area, complainant shifted his connection to that pipeline on his own without permission of the department.   Due to that reason leakage started in the pipe and water started seeping in the earth.  Ultimately when this fact came to the notice of the department, notices Ex.R-1 and R-2 were issued to the complainant.  It was specifically mentioned therein that he had tempered with the pipes and holes were found at two different places.  The hole is clearly visible in photograph Ex.R-4.  When this fact came to notice of the department the leakage was stopped which is clear from photograph Ex.R-4.  Complainant has miserably failed to show that holes were made by the department.  Complainant has also failed to controvert this averment.  He tendered his affidavit Ex.C-23 after filing reply by the O.Ps.  He nowhere alleged in affidavit that the connection was not shifted by him. When leakage has started due to act of the complainant by shifting connection to other pipe without permission of the department and on his own level, the O.P.s cannot be blamed about damage to his house.  Complainant cannot take benefit of his own wrong.    In these circumstances complainant is not entitled for any compensation from the O.Ps.  When he himself caused damaged the pipes he has to bear the consequences.  Learned District forum failed to take into consideration this aspect.

9.      In view of above discussion, impugned order dated 22.12.2014 is set aside.  Resultantly appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.

July 24th, 2015		Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench		R.K.Bishnoi, Presiding Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.