13.10.2014 O R D E R Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, (for short “PUDA”) has filed this Revision Petition, questioning the correctness of order dated 07.08.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in First Appeal No. 755 of 2008. By the said order the State Commission has affirmed the order, dated 06.05.2008, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala in Complaint No. CC/146 of 2007, directing the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant sums of ₹1,935/- and ₹2000/- towards the expenditure incurred by him for getting repaired a leaking water supply line outside his residence and as costs respectively. Being an old matter, notice was issued to the parties for fixing an actual date for final hearing. As per office report both the parties have been served. Mrs. Rachna Joshi Issar has put in appearance on behalf of the Petitioner. However, the Respondent/Complainant remains unrepresented. We find that in his reply to the stay application, filed on 24.04.2009, the Complainant has already informed this Commission that at the age of 75 years, suffering from high blood pressure and backache, it will not possible for him to pursue the case. So much so, he has even declined to accept a sum of ₹3,000/-, directed to be paid to him to meet travel expenses, stating that he does not want to be a partner in the wastage of public money. In light of the said communication, we proceed to decide the Revision Petition, pending for over six years. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. As noted above, the grievance of the Respondent in his complaint was that since PUDA was charging ₹172/- per month for maintenance and uninterrupted supply of water, it was its duty to maintain the pipe lines. However, despite several visits to the office of PUDA the damaged pipe was not repaired and he had to spend a sum of ₹1935/- for getting the same repaired. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of PUDA, the complaint was filed, praying for reimbursement of the said amount with direction to PUDA to maintain uninterrupted water supply. The version of the Complainant has been accepted by the Fora below. We are constrained to observe that having regard the nature of the complaint and the quantum of the compensation awarded, this Petition by PUDA is sheer wastage of public money and Judicial time. Both the Fora below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that PUDA had failed to repair the pipeline which it was obliged to maintain to ensure uninterrupted water supply. In our view, the said finding does not give rise to any substantial question of law of general importance, warranting our interference in the exercise of Revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed, with a direction that PUDA shall deposit a sum of ₹10,000/- in the Consumer Welfare Fund, within four weeks from today for wasting valuable Judicial time. It is high time that the public authorities stop wasting public money on litigation in trivial matters. Ar/Yd |
