Back
M.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPU1ES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.B. Suryavanshi, President;
Mr. M.L. Tiwari and Meena Sapre, Members
NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM, REWA—Appellant
versus
RAVIKANT PANDEY—Respondent
AND
M.P. STATE & ORS.—Appellants
versus
RAVIKANT PANDEY—Respondent
Appeal Nos. 9 of 1990 and 2 of 1991—Decided on 12.3.1991
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - Consumer - Municipal water tap in the name of landlord - Common to all tenant" - Landlord realising water charges - Whether tenant is consumer of water tap? (Yes, as beneficiary of much service or user of such goods? (Para 6) - Relevant data not produced - No opinion thus expressed whether complainant falls within the definition of Consumer.
(Para 8)
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14(l)(d) r/w. 13(l)(c)(d)(e)(f) & (g) Complaint of polluted water supply causing infective hepatis to the complainant - Forum relied on three reports of medical expert" - No sample of water from impugned tap taken and analyzed - Whether appellants can be held liable in such a case? (No). (Para 9)
(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 14(l)(d) - Damages for illness by polluted water supply - Necessary particulars of special damages not furnished - Even doctor who treated the complainant not examined Result - No damages can be awarded.
Held: To conclude, we are unable to affirm the finding of the learned Forum that the complainant fell ill only because of insanitary conditions created by the Municipal Corporation, and polluted water supply by P.H.E.D. No direct nexus between the illness and alleged negligence has been proved. In the result, the impugned order dated 29- 11-1990 directing the Municipal Corporation, Rewa, and P.H.E.D., Rewa, 10 pay total damage of Rs. 3,000/ - (with a direction of apportioning the said amount into Rs. 1,500/- each) are hereby set-aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but the parties shall bear their costs as incurred throughout. (para 11)
Result: Appeal allowed.
IMPORTANT POINT
For proving negligence of Municipality about polluted water supply in a tap sample of water and its analysis should have been done.
Justice, Y.B. Suryavanshi, President—Both the appeals have been heard together since they arise out of common orders passed by the District Forum on 29.11.1990, between the same parties involving common questions of facts and law. The Forum has awarded Rs. 3,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain bodily suffering and the medical and other sundry expenses with a direction that the compensation be paid by two opposite parties i.e., P.H.E.D. and Nagar Palika, Rs. 1,500/- each. The other two Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 4 respectively were State of M.P. through Collector and Chief-Medical Officer, but only two O.Ps. stated above have been held liable for compensation.
2. The original complaint against five O.Ps. claiming Rs. 25,000/- as total compensation averred, that the complainant Ravikant Pandey through out from 19.5.1990 to 9.7.1990 suffered from “pilia” i.e., jaundice. The compensation is claimed under different heads viz. —
—Rs. 1,200/- : Compensation for loss of “pri vate service”;
—Rs. 2,000/-: For being unable to attend do mestic chores;
—Rs. 15,000/- : Loss from agricultural income since three members in the family during the period attended on the complainant.
—Rs. 6,000/- : On account of weakness i.e., injury to health and medical advice for rest three months.
—Rs. 5,000/-: Medical expenses.
3. O.P. No. 4 i.e., Chief Medical Officer denied the entire claim for want of particulars, and also averred that the claim is highly exaggerated and is also liable to be dismissed because the complainant is not a “consumer” as envisaged under the Act. The Nagar Nigam O.P. No. 5, has also denied the claim. O.P. Nos. 2 and 3, while denying the claim as also their liability, stated, that the jaundice could be caused not necessarily through polluted water-supply, but also because of various other factors, such as, non-washing of hands after ablutions, consumption of contaminated articles like ice-cream, cold-drinks, rotten vegetables, unhygienic surroundings, non-washing of vegetables before use, etc. So far as the water supply to the city of Rewa is concerned, the samples are taken daily for maintenance of quality as per prescribed standards and no complaint, whatsoever, about water supply was received, otherwise preventive action would have been taken. There was “Quality Control” in the supply of water, and therefore, the P.H.E.D. is not liable.
4. The complainant examined himself besides two witnesses viz., Govind Prashad Shukla and Rajendra Prashad Mishra. Only one witness was examined on behalf of the opposite party. The Forum held that the complainant suffered from jaundice from 19.5.1990 to 9.7.1990. In the absence of evidence about the damages claimed on various grounds, the learned President found them “not proved”, and dismissed the entire claim.
However, the learned two members in their dissenting judgment found that the claim for damages regarding Rs. 1,200/-, Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- has not been proved. However, they held that Dr. Pande prescribed the medicines and had advised the fruit-diet; that the complainant suffered illness for 2 months and the after effects of jaundice must have continued further, even for about 2- 3 months. Therefore, on an estimate of expenses on medicines, fruits and sundry expenses at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month damages of Rs. 2,000/- were awarded on that count, and a further amount of Rs. 1,000/- for bodily and mental pain and suffering total Rs. 3,000/-.
5. O.Ps. the Nagar Palika Nigam and P.H.E.D. have been held liable on the ground that in a similar case before that Forum viz., Tribhuvan Prashad Chaturvedi v. M.P. State and Others (Complaint Case No. 1 of 1990) three Reports of Experts were produced in which it was noted that the gutters are not clean, the pipe-lines run under the drainage pipes at many places etc., consequently there is pollution in water supply. Thus, on consideration of those reports and taking the view that the complainant is a “consu
