| Damage to house due to leakage from Municipal Public Sewerage – Held that it is a proper Consumer Dispute Facts Allegation of Complainant-Municipal Council and Water Supply and Sewerage Board had laid down pipes just in front of the house of Complainant for flushing water of drains and sewerage and it had damaged her house. The pipe was lengthy one, but just in front of house of Complainant, it had been damaged and had been leaking out water and refuse etc., which had gone into walls of Complainant's house. It had damaged, cracked and made walls of house of Complainant wet with saline water to extent of 14 feet and this had made front portion of house vulnerable for living due to fear of coming down at any time causing loss of life and property, etc. Complaint with District Forum for replacing defective pipes, compensation ofRs. 25,000/- for damage done to house and costs for complaint. Decision of District Forum District Forum dismissed Complaint by holding that Complainant was not a Consumer and, thus, no relief could be granted to her. Complainant holds a sewerage connection. She can be clothed with status of a cQnsumer only if she can be considered having hired services of opposite' parties for proper maintenance of sewerage connection. Decision of Punjab Commission. Factual position in regard to :
Placed on record have not been considered at all while holding by District Forum that Complainant was not a Consumer! State Commission has held in another case that Complainant therein had been paying water and sewerage charges to opposite parties for last so many years and she was entitled to all civic amenities provided under Punjab Municipal Act and therefore, she fell within definition of "Consumer" under Consumer Protection Act. In that State Commission had directed O.Ps to rectify defects in drainage and sewerage system and it was held that Complainant was a "Consumer". Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that a Government or Semi-Government body or local authority was as such amendable to Consumer Protection Act as any other private body rendering similar service. Relevant portion of order of Supreme Court reads as under: "A Government body or Semi-Government body or a local authority is as much amendable to the Act as any other private body rendering similar service. Truly speaking, it would be a service to the society if such bodies instead of claiming exclusion subject themselves to the Act and let their acts and omissions scrutinized as public accountability is necessary for healthy growth of society." State Commission hold that in the case in hand, it could not be held by D.F. that Complainant was not "Consumer" of O.Ps Case remanded back for decision taking into consideration factual position on record. << Back |