MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE OF NARWANA Vs. MUNSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the respondent is a consumer vis-a-vis the Municipal Committee, Narwana is the solitary core question in this appeal?

(2.) The somewhat curious case set up by the respondent was that the employees of the Municipal Committee had dug a pit in close vicinity to the mud house of the respondent for taking earth for constructing a road nearby. The suggestion was that during the rainy season, the water had accumulated in that pit and this ultimately seeped in and damaged the wall of the complainant, resulting in its ultimate falling down. The rather emotional plea was that the respondent was a handicapped person having lost an arm, and was so poor that he could hardly make his both ends meet. It was the plea that he had been ruined by the damage to the wall and consequently, compensation was sought against the Municipal Committee.

(3.) The appellants firmly contested the complaint and took up the patent that the complainant was not at all a consumer qua the appellant and the case was not maintainable. On merits also the allegations were categorically denied and the stand was that the complainant had himself dug the earth for constructing the mud wall, which had fallen down due to heavy rains in the monsoon.