Haryana

StateCommission

A/398/2016

STATE OF HARYANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PAVINDER KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

GOVT.PLEADER

11 Oct 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    398 of 2016

Date of Institution:    06.05.2016

Date of Decision :    11.10.2017  

 

1.      State of Haryana through Collector, Sirsa.

2.      Sub Divisional Officer, P.W.D. Public Health, Sub Division, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

 

Pavinder Kumar s/o Sh. Narain Dass, Resident of Ward No.13, Gali Jyotishi Wali, Mohalla Namdhari, Rania, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.

 

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.            

 

Argued by:          Shri Anchal Jain, SDO, PWD, Public Health, Sub Division, Sirsa along with Shri Ashok Pasricha, Deputy Advocate General for the appellants. 

                             Shri Tarun Gupta, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated February 11^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.130 of 2014.

2.                Pavinder Kumar-complainant (respondent herein), Resident of Ward No.13, Mohalla, Namdhari, Rania, District Sirsa was provided a water supply connection bearing No.7/21 in his house by the Opposite Parties-appellants.  Complainant is paying water supply charges to the opposite parties regularly. For providing water supply, connection of the house of the complainant and houses of other inhabitants of the Village, Public Health Department installed underneath water pipes. The maintenance of the underneath water pipes is the responsibility of the opposite parties. As per version of the complainant, now-a-days, the water pipes are not being properly maintained. This problem was brought to the notice of the opposite parties that there was leakage in the water pipes which was likely to cause damage to the property of inhabitants of the Village. Ultimately, due to damage caused to the underneath water pipeline, water entered the constructed portion of the house of the complainant. Due to this water leakage problem, the house of the complainant has been badly damaged. There are cracks in the floor and walls of the house. Main gate of the house has also been badly damaged. The house may collapse at any time. The complainant requested the opposite parties to look after the maintenance of the water pipelines properly and to provide suitable compensation amount to the complainant.

3.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer that the opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs to the complainant on account of loss caused to the house of the complainant; to allow an amount of Rs.1.00 lac on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and an amount of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

4.                The opposite parties have taken plea in their written version that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. It is denied that any damage has been caused to the house of the complainant due to leakage or poor maintenance of underneath water pipelines installed by the Public Health Department. This fact is in the knowledge of the complainant also that the damage, if any, caused to the house of the complainant has been caused due to leakage of the personal water pipeline connecting the main water pipeline and personal pipeline installed inside the house of the complainant. The underneath water pipeline has been installed by the Public Health Department in the street and personal pipeline has been installed by the complainant connecting the main pipeline with other pipelines fitted inside the house of the complainant. In fact, there was no leakage in the sewerage line and the water pipeline belonging to the opposite parties. As per report of Shri Amrit Pal Singh, Plumber, bearing licence No.1368 dated July 30^th, 2007, there was no leakage or breakage in any of the water pipelines or the sewerage line at the time of his visit. It is the liability of the opposite parties of proper maintenance of water pipelines. In fact, the leakage of water occurred only on account of deteriorated condition and leakage of the personal pipeline of the complainant. Amrit Pal Singh, Plumber, visited the house of the complainant to remove the defects in the water pipeline, if any. After proper checking of the personal water pipeline, the complainant got repaired the personal water pipeline from Amrit Pal Singh, Plumber, by paying labour charges. Apart from it, Shri Vasudev Mehta, Water Pump Operator, also checked factum of leakage in the pipeline on the complaint of the complainant and reported that the leakage was found existing out of the personal water Pipeline leading to the house of the complainant and there was no deficiency or any kind of leakage in the sewerage and water pipeline under the control and management of the opposite parties. The complaint has been filed by the complainant only to grab money from the opposite parties. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.

5.                Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.

6.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated February 11^th, 2016, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of losses caused to the complainant due to damage caused to his house and an amount of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint.

7.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated February 11^th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, the opposite parties have filed the present appeal bearing No.398 of 2016 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.

8.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

9.                The complainant is residing in a house situated at Rania, a small Town in Sirsa district. As per version of the complainant due to leakage and damage caused to the underneath water pipeline for supplying the domestic water supply, damage was caused to the floor, walls and main gate of the house of the complainant. Due to leakage of water, the cracks developed in the floor as well as walls of the house and main gate was also damaged. All it happened due to poor maintenance of the underneath water supply pipeline by the opposite parties. It is admitted fact that water supply connection has been provided to the complainant in his house and there is a underneath water supply pipeline with proper sewerage system in the main street near the house of the complainant for providing water supply to the house of the complainant and other inhabitants of the town.

10.              Regarding ownership of the house of the complainant, there appears to be no controversy of any type. Moreover, it is evident from the documents Exhibit C1/E to Exhibit C1/I that the complainant is owner of the house and he used to pay water supply charges regularly to the Public Health Department. IN order to prove cracks in the walls, floor and main gate of the house, the complainant adduced in evidence photographs Exhibit C1/A to Exhibit C1/D. The complainant got assessed the total loss caused to the complainant on account of damage caused to the house of the complainant from M.L. Chopra, Registered Architect.  The estimate cost assessment report is Annexure-1, wherein it is mentioned that the complainant had to suffer total loss amounting to Rs.3,55,000/- on account of damage caused to the house of the complainant. In the report Annexure-1, the total loss shown is even more than the total amount claimed by the complainant in his complaint. Anyhow, taking help of some guesswork, learned District Forum awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of total loss caused to his house.

11.              Anyhow, findings can be given that some damage was caused to the house of the complainant. Estimated cost of damage may be more or less. This Commission is required to give findings in clear words as to whether the damage was caused to the house of the complainant due to poor maintenance of sewerage and underneath water pipeline for water supply or due to poor maintenance of the sewerage system by the Public Health Department or due to any other fault on the part of the complainant himself or due to some any other reason. It will be pertinent to mention here that the complainant in his complaint has not mentioned specifically when first time the leakage started in the sewerage system or the underneath water supply pipeline system. The complainant has also not mentioned in clear words that on which date, month and year first time complainant made complaint to the opposite parties to redress his grievance. In fact, from the contents of the complaint it appears that the complainant orally and in writing never made any complaint to the opposite parties mentioning that there is leakage in the water pipeline and sewerage system and due to this reason some damage has been caused to his house.  From the contents of the complaint, it appears that the complainant first time informed the opposite parties when damage had already been caused to his house. Apart from it, the Public Health Department has provided proper sewerage system and underneath water pipeline for supply of domestic drinking water to the house of the complainant and other inhabitants of the town. Water supply pipes and water outlets installed in the house of the complainant were got installed by the complainant himself. Public Health Department only provides water supply pipeline up to the boundary wall of the residential houses and from that place, connecting water supply pipeline and outlets are installed and fixed by the owners of the houses like in the case in hand.

12.              It is evident from the report of Amrit Pal Singh, Plumber dated June 08^th, 2014 placed on the file that he was deputed by the Public Health Department to do the needful for proper supply of the water to the house of the complainant but he found that there was no defect or leakage of any type in the main water supply pipeline and the sewerage system.  The connecting water supply pipeline to the house of Pavinder Kumar was found damaged. Pavinder Kumar was present there and was told in this regard. That connecting water pipeline was repaired by him and payment was made by Pavinder Kumar-complainant. The above mentioned report was sent to Junior Engineer (J.E.), Public Health Department. Same type of report was submitted by Vasudev Mehta, Water Pump Operator to the J.E.  So, from these two reports already placed on the file it clearly appears that the leakage of the water was in personal connecting water supply pipelines and Public Health Department was not duty bound for proper maintenance of the personal connecting water supply pipeline.

13.              As per discussions above in detail, it clearly appears that some damage was caused to the house of the complainant due to leakage of the personal connecting water supply pipeline installed by the complainant himself.  Moreover, the damage to the house, as mentioned in the complaint is not possible due to some leakage in the water supply for a period of few weeks or months. If there was any such problem in connection with leakage of water supply, the complainant should have filed a complaint in the office of the Public Health Department as soon as possible. Certainly, so many cracks in the floor, walls and main gate of the house cannot be possible during a short period. If the structure of the building is strong enough, such type of cracks are not possible only due to leakage of water from the water supply pipelines in a short duration. Nothing is mentioned regarding age and time of construction of the house in the complaint. Such type of cracks may be due to old time construction of the house also. Moreover, during rainy season, water flow is in routine daily or on alternative days on the roof, walls and other parts of the houses. It appears that damage was caused to the house of the complainant as the construction was old and poor material was used at the time of construction and some effect might have taken place due to leakage of water from the personal water pipeline also. If there was any such problem, the complainant should have immediately informed the opposite parties. It appears that damage was caused to the house of the complainant in routine, may be due to old aged building and due to poor quality of construction material and the complainant thought it proper to file the present complaint to grab some money from the opposite parties. Merely on the basis of the statement of the complainant in his affidavit (Exhibit C-1) and affidavit of other Villagers Gurpal Kaur and Jaswant Singh etc, findings cannot be given that damage was caused to the house of the complainant due to fault on the part of the opposite parties.  We feel it will not be justified to award any amount of compensation to the complainant at the cost of public exchequer. Public money should not be allowed to be mis-utilised. With these observations, we feel learned District Forum has committed an error while awarding compensation amount and litigation expenses to the complainant.

14.              As a result, as per discussions above in detail, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order dated February 11^th, 2016 is set aside and the complaint stands dismissed.

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

 

Announced 11.10.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL