These two appeals were filed by the OPs against the order dated 8.6.2000  passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Panipat, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the complaint of Smt. Nirmal Aggarwal (now deceased represented by her husband Sh.W.R.Aggarwal and her son Sh.R.K.Aggarwal)  was accepted.  The operative part of the order reads as under :-

            “………. So to our mind, both the respondents i.e. SDE,  Public Health Deptt. Sub Div. No.4 Panipat and the XEN, Public Health Deptt. Sub Div. No.1  Panipat are hereby directed to pay Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five thousand only)  from their own pocket) to the complainant within a period of thirty days from the date of present announcement for the negligent services performed by them. The officers, for the said penalty shall be liable to pay to the complainant who were posted on these respective seats on 11.2.2000 i.e. date of filing of the present complaint.

                        The respondents are further directed to pay Rs.6060/- the development charges deposited by the complainant to the complainant within a period of thirty days alongwith Rs.1100/- as road cut deposited by him. The total road cut charges of Rs.1290/- were deposited by the complainant and if the respondents lay down the sewerage line at their own then such long road cut was not required to be done.

                        The respondents are further directed properly maintain and clean the above said sewer line as their own sewer line was/is /will be their responsibility, in future. The respondents shall also clean the sewer line in front of the house of the complainant immediately. The amounts mentioned above shall be paid by the respondents to the complainant within a period of thirty days from the date of present announcement, alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.1100/- It is further made clear that the only amount of Rs.10,000/- i.e. Rs.5,000/ each shall be paid by the respondents from their own pockets, who were posted in the said sub Divn. And  Divn. On 11.2.2000 and the remaining expenses shall be born by the departments.”

2.                              Initially, the appeals were filed before the Hon’ble Haryana State Commission but subsequently the same were transferred to this Commission.  F.A.No.983 of 2000 (RBT/F.A. No.496 of 2006) was decided vide order dated 22.12.2006, whereby the appeal was accepted and the complaint was dismissed whereas the other appeal bearing F.A.No.975 of 2000 (RBT/F.A.No.230 of 2007) against the same order was dismissed vide order dated 05.02.2008. Against the order dated 22.12.2006, the respondents/complainants filed a revision petition bearing  No.912 of 2007 which was disposed of by the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 24.8.2011 with the following observations :-

“ Against the order of the District Forum, two appeals were filed. Appeal No. 983/2000 was disposed of by the impugned order dated 22.12.2006 whereby the appeal was allowed and the complaint was directed to be dismissed. The second appeal bearing No. 975/2000 was disposed of on 5.2.2008 in which a completely different view has been taken by the same judge. The orders passed in both the appeals are contradictory in nature.

Since the two orders passed by the State Commission against the same impugned order are contradictory and irreconcilable, both the orders are set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to take up both the appeals together and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.”

Parties, through their Counsel, are directed to appear before the State Commission on 20.9.2011.

Since this is an old matter, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and prefereably within a period of 6 months from the date of first appearance.

That is why the parties are before us again.

3.                              The complaint was initially filed by Mrs.Nirmal Aggarwal (since deceased and now represented by respondents No.1 and 2) and by Sh.R.K.Aggarwal, respondent No.2 alleging that they are owners of House No.71, Model Town, Behind Sanatan Dharam, Barat Ghar, Panipat which was constructed in the year 1988-89 and various development charges were paid.  It was stated that no sewerage line  was laid down by the OPs in the street and, therefore, in the year 1989, they spent money from  their  own pocket to lay sewerage line approximately 185 feet long from their house up to manhole situated at the end of the street towards north. However, in November 1998, their sewerage started overflowing at the entrance of their house due to wrongful obstruction made by some unscrupulous elements in the flow of their sewerage line and even one of the manholes was cemented, so as to prevent the smooth flow of the water.  It was stated that this fact was brought to the knowledge of JE/SDO/XEN, PWD, Public Health department  several times but to no effect and on the other hand, appellants wrote letter that since, sewerage pipe was laid down by them and the same had been broken in the way, so, it be got repaired as it was creating pollution in the environment.  Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed by the complainants to direct the appellants/OPs to properly maintain and clean the sewerage line and further to refund the development charges of Rs.760/-,  road cut charges of Rs.1290/- and sewerage connection charges of Rs.100/- and further Rs.200/- spent on paper work and also to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental torture and agony and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the amounts spent by them on legal proceedings.

4.                              OPs in their reply stated that the complaint was bad for non-joinder/mis-joinder of parties.  It was stated that the sewerage line in dispute was private sewerage line of  complainants/respondents which was about 185 ft. in length whereas the pipe line  laid by OPs was at a distance of three ft . from their house and that they had advised the respondents/complainants to connect their sewerage line with the said main sewerage laid down by the appellants in front of their house but they did not pay any heed to this advice. According to the OPs/appellants, they were not responsible to maintain and clean the private sewerage pipe line laid down by respondents. 

5.                              Parties led evidence in support of their case. 

6.                              Subsequently as none appeared on behalf of the OPs at the time of arguments, hence, they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 25.5.2000.

7.                              After hearing the ld. Counsel for the complainants and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated in the opening para of this order.

8.                              The OPs filed two separate appeals against the said order, which were decided by this Commission vide orders dated 22.12.2006 and 05.02.2008 as mentioned in para 2 of this order.

9.                              The complainants/respondents challenged the order dated 22.2.2006 before the Hon'ble National Commission in R.P.No.912 of 2007, which was set aside and the appeals were remitted to this Commission for passing a fresh order as mentioned in para No.2 above.

10.                         We have heard Sh. Amit Goel, AAG alongwith Sh. Subhash Chander, SDE, Public Health Department, Sub Division No.4, Panipat, for appellants, in the first appeal (for respondents No.3 & 4 in the second appeal) and Sh. R.P. Garg, appellant No.2 in person and on behalf of Sh. V.P. Mehta, appellant No.1, in the second appeal, and have perused the written arguments submitted by the respondents 1 & 2.

11.                         The contention of the complainants that they are owners of House No.71, Model Town, Panipat is not denied by the OPs. It is also not disputed that they have laid their own private sewer line approximate 185 feet long and connected it to the main hole of the OPs’ sewerage line. It is also a fact that the OPs collected necessary charges from the complainant for connecting the said sewer line with their own sewer line.

12.                         The main question to be decided is as to whether the private sewer line constructed by the complainants at their own costs has converted into a public sewer line and consequently the OPs would be liable to clean the same at their own expenses or not. The Learned District Forum allowed the complaint treating it as a Public Interest Litigation as mentioned in para 14 of the impugned order. It may be mentioned that it is not a Public Interest Litigation but is a dispute between two parties in which the complainants want that the OPs should deal with their opponent/neighbour to help the complainants out of this problem.

13.                         As the record shows it is a dispute between the two private persons. On the one side are the complainants and on the other side is their neighbour namely Sh. S.L.Sareen. The complainants in para 5 of the complaint referred to a letter dated 26.04.1999, in para No.1 of  which, it is mentioned that there is inspection chamber in front of the house of one Sh. S.L.Sareen who has illegally blocked the same by cementing it forcibly. According to the complainants, all efforts on their part to persuade the OPs to remove the same and to get the blockade cleared from the inspection chamber did not prove fruitful. The complainants then moved a complaint under Section 133 of the Cr.PC before the Learned SDM, Panipat. Annexure C-2 is the conditional order passed by the SDM  and subsequently the said order was confirmed vide order dated 08.06.99 (Annexure C-3 ). Sh. S.L.Sareen filed a revision petition before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat but the same was dismissed vide Annexure C-4. Since the dispute is between private parties, the liability of the OPs to remove the blockade did not arise.

14.                         The learned Counsel for the complainants/respondents has referred to Annexure C-4 and argued that after the sewerage connection was sanctioned the entire sewerage pipe line would vest in the OPs/appellants and it would be their liability to maintain it and clean it whenever it is blocked. The Learned District Forum accepted this contention. We, however, do not find any merit in this argument. Annexure C-14 is the letter issued by the OPs sanctioning the sewer connection to the main drain. It reads as follows:

                        “Subject: Sanction of sewer connection in drain.

Sanction of regularization /sewer connection is hereby accorded subject to usual terms and conditions fixed by the Haryana Govt.

Sd/-

Sub Divisional Engineer”.

                        This letter shows that it was only the connection, which was regularized and not the sewer line. In this manner, the sewer line remained private of the complainants and merely because the same was allowed to be connected to the public sewer line would not convert it into a pubic sewer line. The complainants could not produce any such documents vide which the OPs resumed the ownership of the said line or undertook to clean it at their own expenses. Annexure C-14, therefore, does not confer any liability on the OPs of cleaning the said sewer line if the same is blocked. The cleaning of this sewer line would remain the duty of the complainants who own it.

15.                         The complainants have referred to Annexure C-5 vide which the Tahbazari was paid to the Municipal Committee, Panipat.  Annexures C-6 and C-7 are the receipts vide which the development charges were paid. The payment of Tahbazari and development charges to the Municipal Committee would not make the complainants consumers under the OPs.  Similarly, the charges received by the OPs for connection of private sewer line with the main sewer line would also not put a responsibility on the OPs to clean the sewer line.  The receipt (Annexure C-13) vide which the charges were paid for connection could give a cause of action to the complainants if the connection was not granted even in spite of receipt of the said amount and nothing more which is not the case.  We are of the considered view that the charges having been paid by the complainants did not make them consumers under the OPs.

16.                         The complainants/respondents have alleged that they have been paying taxes to the Govt. with the income of which the OPs are to maintain the sewer line and, therefore, they would become the consumers of the OPs. We do not find any merit in this connection. Mere payment of taxes would not put the responsibility on the OPs to remove the blockade in the private sewer line of the complainants.

17.                         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint does not disclose any consumer dispute nor is there any relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. The OPs are, therefore, not liable to clean the private sewer line laid by the complainants at their expenses. The dispute about the blockade is to be resolved between the complainants and their neighbour Sh.S.L.Sareen and actually, it has been resolved by taking recourse to criminal action under Section 133 Cr.P.C. by the complainants. Accordingly, both the appeals are accepted, the impugned order of the Learned District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants is dismissed. The parties are left to bear own costs.

                        Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.