Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 154.
Instituted on : 24.02.2012.
Decided on : 26.05.2016.
Basti Ram s/o Sh. Bhagwana R/o Village-Lakhan Majra, Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Health, Sub-Division No.7, Rohtak.
- Superintendent Engineer, P.W.D. Water & Sanitation, Rohtak.
- Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.J.K.Nandal, Advocate for the complainant.
Smt. Kamla Rathi, Dy. D.A. for opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that the complainant is consumer of opposite parties having water connection from the opposite parties. It is averred that due to carelessness of opposite party department and ignorance of proper take care of the water line, seepage of water has been started entering into the walls of house of complainant and due to which several cracks have been developed in the house of complainant and the same are still continue. It is averred that complainant has requested the opposite parties many a times to take necessary action in this regard, otherwise there is every apprehension that the house of complainant will be damaged badly, which could cause loss of property and life. It is averred that opposite parties department has caused loss to complainant by their above-said illegal act and conduct and damaged his house badly. It is averred that the house of the complainant is not safe for human habilitation and can collapse at any time and it will cause a huge loss to the life and property because many big cracks have been developed in the walls of house of the complainant. It is averred that complainant got surveyed his house from Malik Architect Associate, Rohtak and he assessed the total loss amounting to Rs.135000/-. It is averred that the complainant visited several times to the opposite parties and asked to pay compensation and also served a legal notice dated 08.11.2011 to the opposite parties but the opposite party refused to pay any compensation to the complainant. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint with prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.135000/- as compensation(loss assessed by the valuer) and Rs.100000/- on account of causing mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that complainant Basti Ram is not a consumer of opposite party. It is averred that there is no carelessness on the part of the department. All the water supply lines are water proof and are properly maintained by the department. There is no seepage of water as alleged. So question of entering water in walls and developing cracks does not arise. There is no question of any loss of property and life as alleged. It is averred that the department has caused no damage to the house of the complainant. As he obtained unauthorized water connection through unauthorized plumber, there would be problem in lines privately maintained by the complainant. There is no negligence on the part of the department. So the question of payment of any damage does not arise. It is averred that the opposite party department cannot be held responsible for any damage. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, opposite parties in their evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and has closed his evidence.
5 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and other material aspect of the case very carefully.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has contended that due to leakage in the water pipe-line, the big cracks developed in the walls and floors of the house of the complainant and the house damaged badly and caused financial loss to the complainant. It is further contended that the complainant got assessed the loss from the Malik Architect Associates who as per his report Ex.C5 has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.135871/- and the opposite parties are liable to pay the same. It is also contended that the complainant is permanent resident of village and is taking water supply through the supply line laid down by the opposite parties in the streets of village and thus consumer of opposite parties.
7. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has argued that complainant is not a consumer and that all the water supply lines are water proof and are properly maintained by the department. There is no seepage of water as alleged and there is no question of any loss of property of the complainant.
8. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that regarding the plea taken by the opposite parties that complainant is not consumer, it is observed that the complainant is drawing water from the pipeline laid down by the opposite party in the village and hence the consumer of opposite party. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law laid down in 2008(2) CLT 95 titled Public Health Engineering Department & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Leakage in pipeline-laid down by the Public Health Engineering Department-Resulted in excessive damage to the house of respondent-Complainant held consumer as he is drawing water from the same pipeline”. It is also observed that the except the affidavit of Sub Divisional Engineer Ex.RW1/A and photographs Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 opposite parties have not placed on file any document to disprove that there was no damage to the house of complainant. Moreover the photographs Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 are not supported with affidavit of photographer hence inadmissible as evidence. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 1993(2) CLT 363 titled Parkash Wati Vs. Municipality Bhatinda and others, whereby Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab Chandigarh has held that: “Averments made by the complainant in the complaint remain uncontested by the opposite parties-Complainant has established patent deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties” and as per III(2005)CPJ 56 titled Shakuntala Rani Vs. Bharat Yadav Hon’ble U.T. Commission, Chandigarh has held that Photographs not primary evidence under Section 62 of Act- Negatives and affidavit of photographer not produced on record-Photographs inadmissible as evidence”. Regarding the damage to the house of the complainant it is observed that as per the report of Malik Architect Associates the damage to the house of complainant is assessed as Rs.135871/- and the report of Architect is supported with his affidavit Ex.C7. As such as per the documents placed on record it is proved that the damaged caused to the house of the complainant due to leakage of pipeline of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a lump sum compensation of Rs.50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant. Accordingly we hereby dispose of the complaint with direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
11. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
26.05.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
