T R NAVAL Vs. SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is a senior judicial officer. He is occupying Government accommodation bearing No. D -27, Delhi Administration Flats, Timarpur, Delhi. A sum of Rs. 600/ - per month is being deducted from his salary as licence fee/rent. Another sum of Rs. 150/ - per month was being deducted on account of licence fee for the fittings,, fixtures and maintenance thereof. On 18.7.1992 at about 7.00 a.m. ceiling fan in one of the bed -rooms suddenly fell down. Luckily no one was sleeping on the bed and, therefore, the appellant and his children had a providential escape. However, his wife was so shocked that she became unconscious and the doctor was called. A report of the incident was also lodged with the Junior Engineer, incharge of the maintenance office and an FIR was also lodged with the concerned Police Station.

(2.) THE appellant claimed Rs. 25,000/ - as compensation before the District Forum but the District Forum dismissed his complaint with the finding that negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the PWD s maintenance staff could not be proved as no technical expert was produced to prove deficiency in service. Feeling aggrieved appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) AT the first instance, the respondent argued that the appellant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he did not hire or avail any of the services as referred in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act. Let us examine the scope and meaning of service , deficiency and of consumer . Section 2(1)(d) defines consumer as under: