KAMAL JOHRA, CHAIRMAN, NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD, HARIDWAR vs RAMWATI SRIVASTAVA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(UK) 390

2011 (2) UAD 5
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
B.C. Kandpal and Hon’ble Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
First Appeal No. 45/2011
SH. KAMAL JOHRA, CHAIRMAN, NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD,
HARIDWAR & ORS. – Appellants/Opp. Parties
Versus
SMT. RAMWATI SRIVASTAVA – Respondent/Complainant
Decided on : 20.07.2011

Advocates:
For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Yadav, Learned Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Learned Counsel

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sec. 15 — Deficiency in Service — Complainant a resident of Haridwar, paying all the taxes to the opposite parties — Main allegation of the complainant was that due to not maintaining proper drainage system and regular cleaning of the nallahs, water entered into her house, causing damage to the goods — But, the opposite parties had alleged that the water entered into the houses of only those persons whose house were below the road level — As, the opposite parties had not denied that the water had entered into the house of the complainant, as a result whereof the goods were damaged — Also O.P. had not denied that the complainant had not paid any tax to the NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD, HARIDWAR — Held — It was the duty of the opposite parties to maintain proper drainage system in the town, so that the water should not enter into the houses of the persons residing in the locality — Further held that when the house tax and sewer tax are being paid to the NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD — Therefore it was their duty to see that no loss is caused to the residents of the locality on account of water entering into their houses — District Forum had held that as the loss was caused on account of natural calamity — Token compensation of Rs. 100/- just and proper — Also Rs. 900/- towards litigation expenses awarded to the complainant — No error in the impugned order passed by the District Forum — Appeal dismissed. (Paras 2, 6, 7)
miHkksDrk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 1986] /kkjk 15 & lsok esa deh & f'kdk;rdrkZ gfj}kj dh fuoklh gS vkSj lHkh djksa dk Hkqxrku fu;fer :i ls foi{kh dks djrh gS & f'kdk;rdrkZ dk eq[; vkjksi gS fd foi{kh i{k us Mªsust flLVe vkSj ukyksa dh lQkbZ dks vuns[kk fd;k & ftlds dkj.k ckfj'k dk ikuh f'kdk;rdrkZ ds ?kj esa vk x;k vkSj mlds lkeku dks uqdlku igq¡pk;k & foi{kh i{k dk rF; fd ikuh mUgha ?kjksa esa ?kqlk tks lM+d ls uhps Lrj ij Fks & ij foi{k us ;g Lohdkjk fd ikuh ?kjksa esa ?kqlk Fkk vkSj lkeku dks uqdlku igq¡pk Fkk rFkk ;g Hkh ekuk fd f'kdk;rdrkZ us lHkh dj uxj ikfydk ifj"kn esa ;Fkk le; tek fd, Fks & vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k fd ;g foi{k dh ftEesnkjh gS fd og 'kgj esa lQkbZ j[kok,] ukys le; ls lkQ djs ftl dkj.k tyHkjko u gks & pw¡fd x`g dj vkSj lhost dj uxj ikfydk ifj"kn~ dks tek djk;k tkrk gS rks ;g mldk nkf;Ro gS fd og ukxfjdksa dks ckfj'k ds ikuh dks ?kj esa ?kqlus ls gksus okys uqdlku ls cpk, & ftyk miHkksDrk Qksje }kjk #ñ 1000@& ds eqvkots dk fu.kZ; U;k;ksfpr ekuk x;k & vihy fujLr gksus ;ksX;A ¼izLrj 2] 6] 7½

ORDER

(Per : Justice B.C. Kandpal, President)

1. This is appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 12.01.2011 passed by the district forum Haridwar in the consumer complaint No. 234 of 2010. By the order impugned the district forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant.

2. In brief the fact of the case are that the complainant is the resident of Haridwar and is paying all the taxes to the opposite parties. On 18.07.2010 due to the rains water entered into the house of the complainant on account whereof the valuable goods of the complainant were damaged. Alleging deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District forum Haridwar.

3. The opposite parties filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that there has not been deficiency in service on their part. It was also pleaded that on account of rain, the water entered into the house of only those persons house were below the road level.

4. The District Forum on the appreciation of the material on record allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 12.01.2011 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties have filed this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The main allegation of the complainant is that due to not maintaining proper drainage system and regular cleaning of the nallahs, water entered into her house, causing damage to the goods, the complainant has also alleged that thereafter the opposite parties had cleaned the nallahs, the opposite parties have alleged that the water entered into the houses of only those persons whose house were below the road level. The opposite parties have not denied that the water had entered into the house of the complainant, as a result whereof the goods were damaged. The opposite parties have not denied that the complainant has not paid any tax to the NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD, Haridwar. It was the duty of the opposite parties to maintain proper drainage system in the town, so that the water should not enter into the houses of the persons residing in the locality. The house tax and sewer tax has been paid to the NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD and, therefore it was their duty to see that no loss is caused to the residents of the locality on account of water entering into their houses. It is worth to mention here that on account of the water entering into the houses two women and one minor child were lost, who have not been traced till day. The District Forum has held that as the loss has been caused on account of natural calamity and, as such token compensation of Rs. 100/- would be just and proper. The District Forum has awarded sum of Rs. 900/- towards litigation expenses. This way. The District Forum has awarded total sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant which cannot be said to be on the higher side, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the District Forum and the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

7. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document