MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KOTKAPURA Vs. MULKH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order three Appeal Nos.931/96,932/96 and 947/96 are being disposed of as the question involved is common. Three complaints were filed before the District Forum, Faridkot. In the complaint filed by Mulkh Raj, District Forum allowed compensation of Rs.34,500/- with 12% per annum interest thereon against Municipal Council, Kot Kapura. In the complaint filed by Raj Rani and others, the District Forum vide order dated 17.10.1996 directed payment of Rs.28,000/- with 12% per annum interest thereon against Municipal Council, Kot Kapura. Appeals Nos.931/96 and 932/96 are filed against the aforesaid two cases by the Municipal Council. In the third case, the complaint filed by Jeewan Deep Batta was dismissed as he has failed to prove any loss suffered. The complaint was also against Municipal Council, Kot Kapura and was dismissed by District Forum, Faridkot vide order dated 17.10.1996. Thus the complainant has filed Appeal No.947 of 1996.

(2.) The allegations in all the three complaints were common that their houses were situated within the municipal limits of Kot Kapura where Municipal Council laid down pipes for water supply and sewerage pipe for taking away the sewage. On account of leakage of such pipes, the houses of the complainants were damaged that they claimed different amounts as compensation in the three complaints against the Municipal Council, Kot Kapura and Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board. The complainants alleged that since they were being charged for supply of water or use of sewerage system, they were consumers as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and since such systems were not properly maintained by the opposite parties and on account of leakage therefrom, the houses of the complainants got damaged, there was deficiency in rendering service for which they were to be compensated. The opposite parties contested the complaints inter-alia asserting that the complainants could not be treated as consumers as defined under the Act. There was no question of rendering/hiring services for consideration in the matter of maintenance of the systems referred to above. They also denied the loss suffered on that account. After evidence of the parties was obtained on affidavits and documents, the impugned orders were passed.

(3.) The question involved in the present cases stands fully answered in Ram Sarup Sharma V/s. Municipal Committee, Khanna, District Ludhiana,through its Executive Officer 1997 1 CONLT 3254. On account of blockage in the sewerage system, the filth came out of the man-holes and accumulated in the streets. This provided a field for mosquitoes to breed which was hazardous for the public, thus compensation was claimed. After referring to different provisions of the Consumer Protection Act in para 10 of the judgment, it was observed as under : "it was argued on behalf of the Municipal Committee that the complainant is allowed to discharge sewerage from his house into the main line for which nominal charges are being paid by him. Apart from that, there is no other service which is to be rendered by the Municipal Committee for consideration in the matter of working of the sewerage system i. e. , laying down of the main pipes providing outlets in the form of man-holes for proper maintenance of the system and finally taking the entire sewerage of the system and finally taking the entire sewerage to a distance place for its disposal either by way of providing different tanks or by providing a plant for cleaning the water and its disposal. There is no question of hiring services of the Municipal Committee by the complainant or like him others for proper maintenance of the system as such. In this manner, the rendering of service by the Municipal Committee is limited only to the extent of allowing the complainant and likewise other house owners to put their sewerage in the main system. There is force in this contention. Taking up the case of supply of electricity or supply of water to the consumers on charging consideration the complainant in such like matters cannot be allowed to urge that from the source of the energy upto the house of the complainant though it may be legal duty of the opposite party to maintain it properly, their services were hired by the complainants in the wider sense. In such like cases, the complainants pay for the services rendered by the opposite party to the extent of use of energy or the water supplied from the meters installed at the premises of the complainant. In such like case, the complainants are only to be compensated if there is deficiency in rendering such facilities at the receiving end of the complainant. No such directions can be given by the Fora established under the Act in the case of non-supply of electricity on account of any major fault in the main line, transformers or at the generating point. Likewise no such directions can be given by the Fora established under the Act for augmentation of proper maintenance of the water system at the source either in the form of maintenance of water tanks or digging of tube-wells or construction of reservoirs. Whatever quantity of electricity or water is supplied to the individual consumer, the Authorities would be entitled to charge for the same and the consumer dispute will be limited to that extent. Similar would be the position in the case of Telephone Services. "