BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.130 of 2014
Date of Institution : 10.9.2014
Date of Decision : 11.2.2016
Pavinder Kumar, aged about 53 years son of Sh.Narain Dass, r/o Ward no.13, Gali Jyotishi Wali, Mohalla Namdhari, Rania, tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- State of Haryana through Collector, Sirsa.
- Sub Divisional Officer, PWD, Public Health, Sub Division, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT.GURPREET KAUR GILL……PRESIDING MEMBER.
SHRI RAJIV MEHTA ……… MEMBER.
Present: Sh.L.K.Mehra, Advocate for the complainant.
Govt. Pleader with Sh.Sanjay, representative of PH, for opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, case of the complainant is that he is owner in possession of a residential house, situated in Rania. He had obtained water connection bearing no.7/21 from Ops for his house and is paying water charges regularly. In the street, the opposite parties have put underneath water pipes since long time for the inhabitants of the area, but they are not maintaining the same without any rhyme or reason. Now, due to leakage, the water pipes have broken and the water flowed down to the earth of the house of the complainant and thus, the house of complainant has been badly cracked from floor, walls and main gate of the house has also badly damaged. The complainant approached to opposite parties to look after the water pipe lines and to pay him the compensation for damage of house, but they refused. Hence, the present complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the case by filing written statement. It is pleaded that the complainant was aware about the fact that the damage on account of leakage of water pipe line has been occurred only on account of breakage and deteriorated condition of the service line i.e. connection from mains upto the house of complainant, which is the personal pipe line of the complainant and not due to any kind of breaking or leakage out of the sewerage line of the water pipe line belonging to the Ops. Furthermore, the plumber Sh.Amrit Pal Singh, who was called by the complainant has dig out the pits and verified the factum that there is no breakage or leakage in any of the water pipe line or sewerage line liable to be maintained by the Ops. The complainant also got repaired the said pipe line after paying the labour charges to said plumber. As per report of Water Pump operator Sh.Vasudev Mehta, the leakage is existing out of the personal water pipe line leading to the house of complainant and there is no deficiency or any kind of leakage in the sewerage and water pipes of the department.
3. Both the parties have led evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has placed on record Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2-affidavit of Smt.Gurpal Kaur, MC; Ex.C3-affidavit of Jaswant Singh; Ex.C1/A to Ex.C1/D-photographs; Ex.C1/E-copy of house tax assessment; Ex.C1/F to Ex.C1/I-receipts; Ex.C1/J-sale deed; Ex.C1/K-Adoption deed; Ex.C1/L-application for spot verification; whereas, OPs have tendered Ex.R1-affidavit of Sh.Inder Singh, Sub Divisional Officer and Annexure I-report of Loss Assessor Sh.N.L.Chhapola alongwith 5 photographs and layout plan.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
5. It is admitted fact that the complainant became owner in possession of a residential house, situated in Ward no.13, Rania vide adoption deed Ex.C1/K having water connection no.7/21 issued by the Op no.2. He is using the water connection since long. The allegation of the complainant is that due to leakage in main/underneath water pipeline of Ops no.2, the water flowed down to the earth of the house of the complainant and thus, the house of complainant has been badly cracked from floor, walls and main gate of the house has also badly damaged. The complainant approached to opposite parties to look after the water pipe lines and to pay him the compensation for repair of house, but they refused, whereas, the Ops have denied the said allegation of the complainant on the ground that the damage to the house of complainant has been occurred only on account of breakage and deteriorated condition of the service line/personal pipe line of complainant himself. The Ops have further stated that the site was inspected by Sh.Vasidev Mehta, Water Pump Operator and Amrit Pal Singh, Plumber. They both have reported that the leakage is existing out of the personal water pipe line leading to the house of complainant.
6. Various preliminary objections, taken in the replies, are not pressed before us. In our considered opinion, there is also no merit in any preliminary objection. Admittedly, complainants have regular water connection, from Public Health Department. They have been charging water bills, for water consumption. Therefore, he is ‘consumer’ within its definition in Consumer Protection Act. Since the house of the complainants is damaged, due to leakage of water from the water line of the public health department, not properly maintained, so, they have locus-standi, as well as, cause of action to file this complaint. There is no legal requirement of serving any prior notice before filing a consumer complaint. Nothing is shown as to which necessary party is not impleaded and which party impleaded is not necessary. There is also nothing to prove or to presume that the complainants have not come to this Forum with clean hands. Therefore, all the preliminary objections, are hereby decided against the opposite parties and in favour of the complainants.
7. In order to adjudicate the matter in dispute, it is necessary for us to discuss the entire evidence produced before this Forum by both the parties. In support of his case, the complainant has tendered Ex.C1-his own affidavit, wherein he has specifically mentioned that he lodged his complaint regarding leakage of water to Op no.2 on dated 7.6.2014 at 3.40p.m. and again on 14.6.2014. In his said affidavit, the complainant has reiterated the averments made in the complaint and his version has been duly supported by Smt.Gurpal Kaur, MC of that area by filing affidavit Ex.C2 and by Sh.Jaswant Singh, neighbourer of complainant by way of affidavit Ex.C3. Ex.C1/A to Ex.C1/D are the photographs of damaged house. Ex.C1/E is copy of house tax assessment, which is in the name of complainant; Ex.C1/F is receipt of house tax payment; Ex.C1/G to Ex.C1/I are receipts of payment of water charges; Ex.C1/J is the sale deed in favour of Niko Bai and Ex.C1/K is the Adoption deed, which was executed by said Smt.Niko Bai in favour of the complainant; Ex.C1/L is the application filed by the complainant before this Forum for spot verification and the complainant has also placed on record Annexure 1, which is report of Sh.N.L.Chhapola, Regd. Architect, Designer & Loss Assessor, Rania supported with five photographs and damaged house lay out plan. From the glance of photographs ,it is apparently reveals that there are so many cracks vertically as well as horizontally in the wall and roof of the house in question. From the said photographs and Annexure 1 of N.L.Chhapola, it is proved that the house in question is in deteriorated condition due to leakage of water from the water pipe line of Ops and he estimated the total cost of Rs.3,55,000/- in different heads. On the other hand, OPs have tendered Ex.R1-affidavit of Sh.Inder Singh, Sub Divisional Officer and placed on the file notification of Public Health Department, report of Amrit Pal Singh, Plumber and Vasudev Mehta, Water Pump Operator of Public Health Department. Op no.2 has tried to put blame upon the complainant by pleading that there was damage to the house of complainant by his own water pipe line. The Op no.2, however, totally and miserably failed to prove this part of its pleadings. Only self-serving affidavit Ex.R1 of the SDO is not sufficient, especially when there is nothing to prove or to presume that said SDO himself had ever visited the spot. Ops have failed to place on record the affidavits of said Amrit Pal Singh, Plumber and Vasudev Mehta, Water Pump Operator of Public Health Department, who have conducted the alleged spot verification. Both the witnesses of the complainant in their affidavits Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 that a deputation was met to Op no.2 on 14.6.2013 for the rectification of leakage and the work was left pending by the officials of Op no.2. Opposite party no.2 also could not lead any evidence nor could place on record any material to discredit said evidence of the complainant. Therefore, necessary inference is against the Op no.2 and in favour of the complainant.
8. Municipal Councillor is responsible for her Ward. She is conversant about her ward problems, so her affidavit has due weightage and it cannot be treated a waste paper. The Loss assessor has assessed the loss of Rs.3,55,000/- in his report Annexure 1 but the complainant has claimed the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- only. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, we are of the considered our view that end of justice will be met if the complainant is awarded Rs.1,50,000/- on account of damage to the house of complainant.
9. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed with cost of Rs.5000/- and OPs are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (rupees one lac fifty thousand) to the complainant on account of loss suffered by him on account of damages to his house due to negligent, careless manner and deficiency in service in maintaining the lines by the Ops. Compliance of this order be made within Forty five days from the date of the order, otherwise, the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.10.09.2014 till its realization. Relief claimed by the complainant for his mental agony etc. is hereby declined. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated: 11.2.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Pavinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana
Present: Sh.L.K.Mehra, Advocate for the complainant.
Govt. Pleader with Sh.Sanjay, representative of PH, for opposite parties.
Arguments heard. Ld.counsel for complainant submitted a report Annexure I. For orders to come up on 11.2.2016.
Dated: 2.2.2016. Member. Presiding Member,
DCDRF,Sirsa.
Present: Sh.L.K.Mehra, Advocate for the complainant.
Govt. Pleader with Sh.Sanjay, representative of PH, for opposite parties.
Order announced. Vide separate order of even date, complaint has been allowed with costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:11.2.2016. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
