National Consumer Disputes Redressal
K.K. Miglani vs Asstt. Engineer, I-T, Sub-Division, ... on 8 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: AIR 2007 (NOC) 1532 (NCC), 2007 (4) ALJ 210 2007 (5) ABR (NOC) 812 (NCC) = 2007 (4) ALJ 210, 2007 (5) ABR (NOC) 812 (NCC) = 2007 (4) ALJ 210
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2809 OF 2005 (From the order dated 18.5.2005 in Appeal No.A-232/2005 of the State Commission, Delhi) K. K. Miglani, 21/88, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi Petitioner Vs. Asstt. Engineer,I-T, Sub-Division, CPWD, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. Respondent BEFORE : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER For the Petitioner In Person For the Respondent Mr. Rajinder Nischal, Advocate Dated the 8th March , 2007 O R D E R
M.B.SHAH, J. PRESIDENT.
This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 18.5.2005 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, in Appeal no. 232 of 2005.
The CPWD has not filed appeal against the order passed by the District Forum directing them to pay compensation. The Complainant has filed appeal before the State Commission for enhancement of the Compensation of Rs.5000/- awarded by the District Forum.
Facts:
The facts in brief are that the Complainant, Mr. K.K.Miglani, A.D. who is working in the office of N.I.C.D., D.G.H.S., Ministry of Health, was allotted Flat No.21 of 1988, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi by the Directorate of Estates, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. He took possession of the flat on 15.4.2002 from Assistant Engineer,I-T Sub-Division, Central Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as the CPWD), which is responsible for maintenance of the flats. At the time of taking the possession of the said flat, both the outer wooden doors of the flat had developed cracks and had become unserviceable and hence he had requested the CPWD to replace the same.
It is the contention of the Complainant that for this purpose, on the advise of the CPWD, he had made an application for provision of two additional grill doors and deposited a sum o fRs.1,140/- with the CPWD. The CPWD failed to provide the two doors till a theft took place in his flat on 16.9.2002.
It is his further say that on 31.5.2003, at about 7.00 am a portion of the ceiling, approximately, 1 diameter fell down resulting in damage to the washing machine to the tune of Rs.1,500/-.
For these deficiencies in service in not providing the iron grill doors; for not repairing/replacing the wooden doors in spite of making the payment; and for the falling of the piece of ceiling causing damage to the washing machine, the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum-II, Delhi, claiming a compensation of Rs.1 lakh and Rs.1,500/- for the expenditure incurred on the repair of the washing machine.
The District Forum, upon hearing the parties, held that:
(i) the Complainant is a consumer;
(ii) the payment of licence fee charged by the CPWD amounted to consideration for hiring of service by the Complainant;
(iii) there is unexplained delay in not providing the two girll gates;
(iv) there is deficiency on the part of the CPWD in not maintaining the said flat in good condition;
(v) there is no evidence of quantum of the damages suffered by the Complainant due to theft;
(vi) there is no evidence of the amount spent on the repair of the machine;
In view of the above findings, the District Forum allowed a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the inconvenience, harassment, mental agony caused and Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation to the Complainant.
The Respondent has accepted the said findings and has not preferred any appeal against the order of the District Forum.
However, the Complainant preferred Appeal No.232/2005 before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for enhancement of compensation, praying that Rs.1,00,000/- be awarded on account of value of the stolen articles from the flat which could not be locked as the Respondent failed to attend to the grievance of the Complainant within the reasonable time. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal by observing that with regard to the theft, Government cannot be held liable and if the Complainant was so frightened for security he should have installed iron grill doors on his own and should not have waited for three years. However, the State Commission confirmed the order passed by the District Forum by observing that there was delay in fixing the iron grill doors after receiving the consideration for a sum of Rs.1140/- towards part-payment of iron grill doors which amounted to deficiency in service.
Being aggrieved by the said order the Complainant has preferred this Revision Petition.
Findings:
Undisputedly, the Complainant is working as A.D. in the Ministry of Health. He was allotted flat No.21/88 at Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. At the time of taking possession of the flat, it was found that both the outer wooden doors of the flat had developed cracks and had become unserviceable and hence the Complainant requested the respondent to replace the same. It is undisputed that the Respondent is required to maintain the flats in a habitable condition.
The Complainant has produced on record Citizens Charter displayed by the Central Public Works Department which inter alia provides (i) efficiency, promptness and cost effectiveness; (ii) habitability, safety and aesthetics of buildings; (iii) satisfy users needs within yardstick; (iii) efficient recording and monitoring of grievances/complaints; (iv) attend routine complaints within 24 hours; round the clock service for essential maintenance.
It is contended that despite such propaganda, the grievance of the Complainant in regard to fixing of iron grill doors remained unattended even after depositing a sum of Rs.1140/- on 8.5.2002, as directed by the Respondent. They also failed to maintain the ceiling properly. However, as usual practice, the Respondent delayed fixing of iron grill doors and did it after six months. Respondent also failed to provide day to day carpentry service for full one month in spite of repeated requests.
Before the District Forum the Opposite Party in its written reply admitted that the Complainant applied for two iron grill doors. It also admitted that a portion of the ceiling fell down in the flat of the Complainant. However, the Opposite Party denied that there was any stipulated period provided for fixing the two iron grill doors. It, is therefore, contended that the theft did not occur due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. Damage to washing machine has also been denied.
The application dated 17.4.2002 for fixing of two iron grill doors is produced on record by the Complainant. On record, there is also a receipt for payment of a sum of Rs.1,140/- paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party.
There is another letter dated 20th September sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party complaining for not providing of two iron grill doors. The Complainant has also produced on record the board displayed by the Opposite Party declaring that within two to three months additional alteration work was to be done by the Opposite Party.
Hence, from the facts it is established that for a period of six months the two iron grill doors were not fixed despite the payment of Rs.1,140/- made by the Complainant and in the mean time the Complainant suffered a theft in the flat. It also establishes that the doors of the flat were not kept in proper condition, as the doors were unserviceable.
The Complainant was paying licence fee for the use of the flat. The maintenance was required to be carried out periodically by the Opposite Party. There was no reason to delay the fixing of grill doors for more than six months. There was no reason not to visit the premises and find out whether the ceiling was damaged which required repairs. Fortunately, in the present case, the portion of ceiling which fell in the room on 31.5.2003 had not injured anyone.
In these set of circumstances, it is apparent that there is negligence in discharge of duties by the Opposite Party and deficiency in service for which Opposite Party is required to pay adequate compensation to the Complainant.
The Complainant has also filed on record the copy of the FIR lodged on 16th September 2002, i.e. the date of theft, the Complainant had also lodged FIR No.276 of 2002 with the Police Station Lodhi Colony. The FIR reads as under:
Today, my daughter, Mamta Miglani had locked my house at 11 am and had gone to college. My son, Mohit Miglani came from School at 2 pm and found that the kundi at the lock had been pulled out of the wooden door. He informed me and my wife about the theft. On checking, following articles have been found stolen:
(1). Cash Rs.15,000/20,000.
(2). Jewellery Items:
(i) One Gold Chain;
(ii) One Ladies Chain Mangal Sutra;
(iii) Four bangles; and
(iv) Silver set (jewellery) (3). Clothes : Two suits and some sarees.
Necessary investigation may be conducted. I will convey the loss of more articles as and when I come to know about the same.
Considering this deficiency in service, the District Forum as well as the State Commission awarded compensation. According to the Complainant the award of compensation of Rs.5,000/- is totally insufficient. Because, he has suffered a lot of harassment at the hands of the Opposite Parties due to unreasonable delay in fixing the grill doors as a result of which theft took place whereby he lost articles worth more than Rs.1 lakh. It is also contended that his washing machine was damaged because of this. In this set of circumstances, he submitted that adequate compensation should be awarded.
In our view, for dealing such a situation, the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243 is most relevant, which illustrates how a common man / little man can be harassed by the government officials, as reproduced hereunder:
The jurisdiction and power of the courts to indemnify a citizen for injury suffered due to abuse of power by public authorities is founded as observed by Lord Hailsham in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome 1972 AC 1027 : (1972) 1 All ER 801 on the principle that, an award of exemplary damages can serve a useful purpose in vindicating the strength of law. An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. . A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it. .. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it.
Thereafter, the Court also considered that who should pay compensation and further held as under:
It is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention linger on and the man in the street is made to run from one end to other with no result. The culture of window clearance appears to be totally dead. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system.
Apex Court finally held that in such cases the Consumer Fora shall pass appropriate orders that competent authority / department shall pay the amount and recover the same from the concerned responsible officer for their unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionary.
Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision, in our view, this is a fit case for awarding adequate compensation. On the basis of the FIR it is clear that the Complainant has lost cash, at least, of Rs.15,000/-. Further, in the FIR it has been specifically mentioned that the Complainant has lost one gold chain, one ladies chain- Mangal Sutra, four bangles, and one silver set and clothes.
It is true that it can be argued that even if the grill doors were fixed or the doors were repaired, theft might have taken place. But, it can be stated that loose doors and non-fixing of the grills has contributed to the theft or made it easier to a thief to enter the premises.
Further , with regard to maintenance of the ceiling also it was the duty of the officers of the CPWD to have routine check at the premises before handing over the same to the Complainant. Fortunately, the ceiling portion which fell has not hurt the inmates of the quarter.
Considering all these aspects, in our view, compensation of Rs.5,000/- is inadequate. Hence, we enhance the same to Rs.50,000/-. That amount shall be paid by the CPWD to the Complainant. It would be open to the Respondent to recover the same from the officers so that in future such delay in discharge of their duties may not occur.
In the result, the Revision Petition is partly allowed. Compensation is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and it is ordered that the Respondent shall pay the same to the Complainant within eight weeks from the date of the Order. The Respondent shall also pay Rs.5,000/- as costs to the Complainant.
Sd/-
.J. ( M.B.SHAH ) PRESIDENT Sd/-
...
(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO) MEMBER