State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Municipal Council, Rajpura Through Its ... vs Sohan Lal Shorey Son Of Sh. Parshotam ... on 18 September, 2012
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.185 of 2012
Date of institution: 16.2.2012
Date of decision : 18.09.2012
1. Municipal Council, Rajpura through its Executive Officer.
.....Appellant/O.P. No. 1
Versus
1. Sohan Lal Shorey son of Sh. Parshotam Dass resident of
H.No. E-10/7 infront of H.No. 2907 behind Sindhi Trunk
House, Rajpura Town, District Patiala.
Respondent No. 1/complainant
2. S.D.O. Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Guru
Nanak Colony, Rajpura, District Patiala.
.....Respondent No. 2/Opposite Party No. 2
First Appeal against the order dated
7.9.2011 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member
Sardar Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate For respondent No. 1 : Sh. S.L. Shorey, in person For respondent No. 2 : Sh. G.P. Singh, S.D.O. Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board.
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This is O.P's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 7.9.2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short the District Forum) vide which the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant Municipal Corporation First Appeal No.185 of 2012 2 to pay Rs. 5000/- to the complainant for harassment and mental agony experienced by him.
2. The case of the complainant is that he is resident of Rajpura and was having a sewerage connection to his house issued by Municipal Corporation. He had been regularly paying the sewerage consumption charges against the bills issued by the appellant. It was alleged that the sewerage line was laid down by Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board and the same in under the management and control of the appellant. The said sewerage line was lying blocked since May 2010 and was giving foul smell and dirty water of the sewerage was overflowing in the street. The complainant approached the appellant a number of times and also lodged complaints in their register but the appellant did nothing to remove the blockage. Due to the blockade of the sewerage line, the waste water of the house of the complainant and other houses was not drained properly and it was causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant. He therefore, filed the present complaint to direct the O.Ps to remove the blockade in the sewerage line and to pay him Rs. 50,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment.
3. Both the O.Ps filed a joint reply admitting that due to rainy season and some un-traceable debries, the main system was blocked due to which the branch sewerage line automatically got blocked. The blockage of the main sewerage line was cleared by the S.D.O. O.P. No. 2 and therefore the branch sewerage line First Appeal No.185 of 2012 3 got automatically cleared. Their contention is that they have already deputed a team for regular check up of sewerage line of different localities but the same were blocked due to the reason that some persons used to throw their debris i.e. Polythene bags filled with garbage and dug of the milky animals in the sewerage system which choked the line. It takes time to clear the same and therefore the O.Ps were not negligent in performing their duties. The O.Ps admitted that there is a sewerage line to the house of the complainant which was blocked and that the complainant had lodged complaints in the register maintained by the O.P No. 2. It was denied if sewerage lines were blocked due to fault or negligence of the O.Ps. They prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 7.9.2011 allowed the complaint as mentioned in Para No 1 above. The O.Ps have challenged the same through the present appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent in person and have perused the record.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that infact the sewerage lines are maintained by Water Supply First Appeal No.185 of 2012 4 and Sewerage Board and if there is blockade, the same is cleared by them and therefore if the sewerage line was blocked or it was cleared late, the appellant could not be held liable for that. It is argued that the complaint against the appellant should have been dismissed. We do not find any merit in this argument. It may be mentioned that both the O.Ps jointly filed the reply before the learned District Forum, there was no such ground taken in the same if the sewerage line is maintained and is to be cleared by O.P. No. 2 alone and not by the appellant. When such a ground was not taken in their written reply no such ground can be taken in this appeal as the same is beyond pleadings.
8. When we go through Para No. 2 of the preliminary objection, it becomes clear that the O.Ps had deputed a team for regular check up of sewerage lines of different localities and the blockade if any is being cleared. But O.Ps did not produce any such record before the learned District Forum if the sewerage lines are being maintained by Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board and the appellant has no concern or control thereon. On the other hand the contention of the complainant is that the charges under the sewerage connection bill is being regularly deposited by them with O.P. No. 1/appellant. The contention of the O.P. No. 1 that there is no deficiency in service on their part, therefore cannot be accepted as correct. First Appeal No.185 of 2012 5
9. As regards the fact about the blockade it has been admitted by the O.Ps. They have admitted that some unscrupulous persons dropped polythene bags and dug of animals in the sewerage line due to which the main line is blocked and consequently the branch sewerage lines are also chocked. It has not been denied if the sewerage line at the house of the complainant was blocked. It is also admitted that the complainant had moved complaints and had also lodged reports in the complaint register in this respect. There can be no dispute about it that if the sewerage line is blocked, dirty water overflows from the sewerage lines and causes nuisance and harassment to the residents including the complainant. The impugned order is not being challenged on that ground.
10. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that when the sewerage line was blocked, the O.P/respondent No. 2 made efforts and cleared the same and consequently the branch sewerage lines were also cleared. According to him, it was the duty of the O.P. No. 2 to maintain and clear the sewerage line. The appellants however could not refer to any evidence on the record to suggest if the appellant has no management and control over the sewerage line. When the appellant received the sewerage charges, it would be deemed to be over all incharge of the sewerage lines liable to clear the blockage through the officials under its control. It therefore cannot be said if the appellant has no concern or control over the First Appeal No.185 of 2012 6 sewerage line or it cannot be burdened with any compensation for deficiency in service.
11. In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is perfectly in order and it does not call for any interference. The appeal filed by the O.Ps is accordingly dismissed.
12. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.2,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 16.2.2012. This amount of Rs.2500/- with interest, if any, accrued thereon be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
13. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER September 18, 2012.
Rupinder