ORDER

D.S. Tripathi, President.—This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 121 of 2016; Seema Sharma, Advocate Vs. Pollution Control Project Board and others, by which the consumer complaint has been allowed and the appellant (opposite party No. 3 to the consumer complaint) as well as other opposite parties (who have not been arrayed as party by the appellant to the instant appeal), have been directed to pay sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondent – complainant, besides Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses etc., in all, Rs. 6,00,000/-, together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of institution of the consumer complaint till payment.

2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, the complainant is a permanent resident of Vivek Vihar, Ranipur More, Haridwar, District Haridwar. She is regularly paying water tax / house tax, sewer tax, income tax and road tax etc. to the department concerned. On 22.12.2014, the complainant was coming by auto from Roshnabad court to her residence and in the way, she had to change the auto. For the said purpose, she was using the road leading from Jwalapur to Haridwar located near Sector-2 roadway. In the mid of the road, iron cover of sewer line pit was fitted above one foot over and above the road level. The complainant’s leg got stuck in the sewer line cover, due to which, she had fallen on the road and sustained serious injuries on her left knee, besides injuries on other parts of her body. When the complainant did not get any relief in her injuries, she visited Swami Bhumanand Hospital, where she was advised for operation at higher hospital. Thereafter, the complainant got herself examined by several doctors; vaidyas (traditional physicians) and physiotherapists, in which an amount to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- was spent. Inspite of that, the complainant’s knee could not be properly cured. According to the advice of the doctors, the complainant will have to get her knee operated upon at some higher hospital, in which an amount ranging between Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/- is likely to be spent. It is the responsibility of the opposite parties to maintain roads; sewer lines; pits and their covers, but they have committed gross negligence in performance of their duties. The opposite parties are responsible for the loss caused to the complainant due to negligence on their part in maintenance of sewer line cover and manholes. The complainant is a consumer of the appellant and the conduct of the appellant tantamount to “deficiency in service”. Hence, the consumer complaint.

3. No written statement was filed by opposite party No. 1 to the consumer complaint, hence the consumer complaint was proceeded ex-parte against the said opposite party.

4. The opposite party No. 2 to the consumer complaint filed written statement, wherein it was averred that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant to file the consumer complaint. The said opposite party performs the construction work of roads as well as the work entrusted by the State Government for constructing house, road and bridge etc. So far as sewer line and drinking water are concerned, the said opposite party has got nothing to do with the same. So far as construction of manholes is concerned, levelling of manholes falling within the road, the same is done by Maintenance Branch Ganga, Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, Jagjeetpur, Haridwar. Before filing the instant consumer complaint, no information or notice has been given by the complainant to the said opposite party. The opposite party has unnecessarily been impleaded as party to the consumer complaint. Maintenance Branch Ganga, Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, Jagjeetpur, Haridwar, is necessary