KULDIP RAJ KAILA Vs. ADARSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KULDIP Raj Kaila appellant is resident of House No. 196/10, Kainthan, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. He filed a complaint against the respondents in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (in short "District Forum") alleging deficiency in service on the following grounds:

(2.) RESPONDENT No. l has done it arbitrarily and under the influence of SDM, Dasuya. Hence the complaint with the prayer that he be awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000 against respondent No. l by holding him personally liable, Rs. 50,000 against the President of the Municipal Committee, Dasuya and for the removal of the hardships of the appellant and costs of the litigation.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed written reply. Preliminary objections were pleaded and the case was also contested on merits. It was pleaded that neither the appellant was a consumer nor the complaint was maintainable. The appellant has produced two receipts Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 regarding the payment of water supply and sewerage. Both these were issued by the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board directly. Therefore, even if the appellant is a consumer, the complaint was not maintainable against respondent No. l as he was transferred from Municipal Committee, Dasuya with effect from 7.4.2004. All the allegations made by the appellant were specifically denied. It was pleaded that on 23.2.2004 respondent No. 1 was on routine checking along with his sanitation staff in Mohalla Kainthan and he found that the appellant was throwing polythene bags containing garbage in the main drain. Respondent No. l objected to it and asked the appellant to stop from doing so. On this, the appellant got annoyed and he started quarrelling with respondent No. 1 who was on official duty. The appellant also interrupted respondent No. 1 in discharging his official duty and created hindrance in the working of respondent No. 1. Then the matter was reported to the local police. Due to this reason the appellant has ill -will against the answering respondent and has filed a false and frivolous complaint against the answering respondent. The appellant also used defamatory language against him. Respondent No. 1 reserved his right to take necessary legal action against the appellant. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.