MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AJMER Vs. ARUN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the respondent complainant, who was residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the appellant Municipality, hired the services of the appellant to clean and get the septic tank empty of the filth therein. Such prayer was made by him on 14.10.1992 and the required fees of Rs.150/- were also paid by him to the appellant Municipality. Since the appellant did not get the septic tank emptied within a reasonable period, the respondent complainant had to hire the services of other person and got the same emptied on 8.11.1993. He allegedly paid a sum of Rs.500/- in hiring the services of other persons in that behalf. The case of the appellant was that on receipt of the complaint and the fee of Rs.150/- from the respondent complainant on 14.10.1992 they had issued the orders on 15.10.1992 to the authorities concerned but since the facility was not available to get the 'septic tank' emptied, the appellant could not render the services to the respondent in time. It was further submitted that on 2.12.1993 they visited the residence of the respondent complainant to get the 'septic tank' emptied, but he told them that he had already got the filth removed from the tank.

(2.) The D. F. however held that the appellant had rendered deficient services to the respondent and required the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- on account of compensation for mental agony, Rs.500/- on account of the amount spent by the respondent on getting the 'septic tank' emptied by other persons and Rs.150/- the fee deposited by him with the appellant. Aggrieved by such order the appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that since the authorities concerned had made orders on 15.10.1992 to their subordinate staff to get the septic tank emptied, they were not at all fault. It was further submitted that there was non-availability of the required equipments that the septic tank could not be got emptied by the appellant but by such act of the appellant, the respondent had suffered no loss/damage so as to entitle him to the compensation of Rs.2,500/-. We are not impressed with the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant.