K. HARSHA VARDHAN Vs. NISARUDDIN AHMED JEDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum-III, Hyderabad in C.D.No.1075/2005, the opposite parties 1 and 2 preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants parents obtained permission from the opposite parties for construction of building at 3-5-826, Hyderguda, Main Road, Hyderabad which is in the jurisdiction of Circle No.3 MCH, Abids Road, Hyderabad by paying construction fees to the opposite party Corporation and in the month of March-April, 2003, the opposite party without any notice came to the courtyard of the complainant with 25 to 50 labourers and dug the court yard for road widening purpose. Complainant submits that they dug the telephone cables, drinking water pipelines, electricity earthing connections drainage connections and also destroyed other utilities. Complainant submits that he purchased the house in the year 1960 and the said area was taken by the Municipal Corporation in exchange for grant of permission of construction of building by the complainant on payment of permission fees and no notice was issued by the Municipal Corporation prior to digging and destroying the utilities. Complainant called private masons, plumbers, electricians and purchased all the raw material and inputs and spent nearly Rs.20,000/-. Complainant submits that as per the judgement of Apex Court in LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. M.K.GUPTHA reported in CPR 1994 (1) SC complainant is a consumer and the complaint can be filed against any statutory authority and for the damages incurred to him and seeks direction to the opposite parties to pay reasonable compensation of Rs.50,000/- and also to pay expenses incurred by him which is Rs.20,000/-.

(3.) Opposite Party Corporation filed counter stating that the property was purchased in the year 1960 and the pipelines of the complainants property are very old and the pipelines are laid beneath the road at about more than 3 ft. and to lay the CC road , the Corporation dug the road and it is the duty of the complainant i.e. owner of the house to shift or to attend to the repair works of all underground pipe line connections since once the road is widened the municipal authorities have to demolish the structures affected in road widening and clear of the debris and that the complainant had more than 15 days time to shift or change his pipelines but he failed to make any changes at that time and the clarification sought by the complainant with the Addl. Commissioner, Works was clarified that whatever repairs have to be effected , has to be undertaken by the complainant himself. Lastly the opposite party contends that the complainant is not a consumer since there is no deficiency in service and no execution of the work by the opposite party which is related to service.