DILBHARI Vs. THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of two connected Regular Second Appeals Nos. 458 and 215 of 1965 directed against the same judgment of the District Judge, Rohtak. The Municipal Committee, Rohtak, constituted under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, hereinafter called the Act, laid underground pipe -line for supply of water in the city through the instrumentality of the Public Health Department of the erstwhile State of Punjab. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with water supply and under Section 96, the Committee is authorised to provide the area under its control or any part thereof with a supply of wholesome water needed for public and domestic purposes and the State Government can also direct it to do so in which case there is no option left with it. There are rules made by the State Government in exercise of the power given to it under Section 240 and are called the Municipal Account Code. They deal with many procedural matters relating to different departments of the Committee and in the matter of execution of municipal works, some instructions have been laid down in Chapter XIII thereof. No work is permitted to be executed by the Committee until a detailed estimate of its costs has first been prepared in the prescribed manner and sanctioned by the Committee. Normally, a schedule of rates for municipal works is sanctioned every year. It is laid down in the Code that whenever a work is to be started for which an estimate has been sanctioned, the Municipal Engineer shall call for tenders unless the work is to be executed departmentally or through the agencies of the Public Works Department of the Government. It is necessary at this stage to make a reference to another set of rules known as the Municipal Works Rules of 1925. In the instant case, the pipes were admittedly laid through the Public Health Department. Rule 6 of the Municipal Works Rules enjoins that no original work is to be undertaken by a first class committee if it involves an expenditure of ten thousand rupees or more, or by a second class committee if it involves an expenditure of two thousand five hundred rupees or more, unless the technical sanction of the competent authority has previously been obtained. There are different authorities who can accord sanction for different types of works. Rule 14(1) provides that if technical sanction to a project is within the powers of the Municipal Engineer, he shall be deemed competent to prepare the detailed surveys, plans, specifications and estimates and execute the work. In Rule 14(2) it is stated that where the technical sanction of an authority higher than the Municipal Engineer is required, the Municipal Committee may resolve to work through its own engineering staff but shall in that case obtain from the authority competent to grant sanction to the execution of the work a written certificate to the effect that the said staff is competent to prepare the detailed plans, specifications, surveys and estimates and to execute the works. If no certificate is granted, the Municipal Committee must have the said surveys, plans, specifications and estimates carried out by the Superintending Engineer, Punjab Health Circle, the Electrical Engineer, or the Superintending Engineer, as the case may be or by some person or persons nominated by them in this behalf. It is not open to the Municipal Committee to employ any other agency without the previous consent in writing of such authority.

(2.) THE Plaintiff, Smt. Dilbhari, constructed a house somewhere in the year 1958 in Ward No. 9 in the city of Rohtak and the main pipe -line passed through a public street near her house. It is alleged that some cracks appeared in the front portion, side walls, roofs and floors of the house of the Plaintiff and on 28th April, 1962, she informed the Municipal Committee through its employees that these cracks were due to leakage of water from the main pipe -line. Nothing was done on that day and on the following day, i.e., 29th April, 1962, the Plaintiff approached a Municipal Commissioner, Shri Parma Nand Tuli, who brought some employees of the committee to the spot to look into the matter. On earth being dug, two holes were found in the pipe -line through which water had leaked and damaged the Plaintiffs house, and they were got plugged. Damage to the house had occurred because of this leakage of water, and the Plaintiff alleged gross negligence on the part of the Municipal Committee in laying defective pipes and for not properly maintaining them. It was claimed by the Plaintiff that the damaged portion of the house had to be demolished and reconstructed and the estimated cost for such reconstruction was worked out at Rs. 9,750 to which were added Rs. 250 on account of the supposed loss of rent. It was in this way that the Plaintiff claimed Rs. 10,000 as damages said to have been sustained by her. A notice was served on the Municipal Committee and on its failure to satisfy the demand of the Plaintiff, the suit was instituted. The Defendant Committee resisted the suit on various grounds. It was pleaded that there was no negligence on its part in laying or maintaining the underground pipe -line. The plea of the Committee further was that the pipe -line had been laid by the Committee through the Public Health Department of the State and the latter alone was responsible. It was, therefore, urged that the Punjab State and the Public Health Department were necessary parties. The parties went to trial on the following issues:

(3.) ISSUE No. 1 was decided by the trial Court against the Defendant it being held that the Punjab State and the Public Health Department P.W.D. were not necessary parties. Decision on issue No. 2 went in favour of the Plaintiff and on issues Nos. 3 and 4 against the Defendant. Under issue No. 5, the damages were assessed at Rs. 2,509. A decree for recovery of Rs. 2,509 with proportionate costs was accordingly awarded against the Defendant Committee.