ADMINISTRATOR, MUNICIPALITY JAMMU vs RAM KRISHEN KOHLI

THIS appeal is directed against an order passed by Divisional Forum on 25.1.1994 directing the appellant to pay Rs. 5,000/- i.e., compensation to the respondent. THIS was done on the basis of the fact that despite receiving a sum of Rs. 80/- for supply of water tanker on 13.9.1992 at JDA Complex, Janipore, Jammu for the marriage party, the appellant failed to keep the word and provide the services which it had undertaken to render.

THE stand of the appellant is contradictory inasmuch as in the first place it wants us to believe that the service was provided and in the second place it is said that the complainant had no locus standi as the Tanker was booked by one Jia Lal. In re-joinder the complainant had clarified the position by saying that Jia Lal is his son and since he was busy in arranging marriage he had deputed his son to deposit the amount. This was not refuted by the appellants. The evidence tendered by the complainant and his witness Gopal Dass was found reliable and the witnesses namely Vijay Kumar Driver and Shiv Kumar, Transport Officer Municipality were treated as suspect and from our point of view rightly so. The stand taken by the appellant in itself renders him a suspect. The nature of defence taken up shows that there is a attempt to somehow wriggle out of the situation. How is it possible for us to believe that he supplied the water to the complainant when in the same breath it is suggested that the complainant had not booked the water. It is not the case of the appellant that the water was not to be supplied at JDA Complex Park Janipora. The most important evidence namely the Log Book and the report by the driver to the Transport Officer of the Municipality namely Shiv Kumar has been suppressed from us. This has obviously been done as that would have provided clinching evidence to show as to what exactly had happened. In the circumstances the Forum was justified in disregarding and dis-crediting the evidence adduced by the appellants. If the documentary evidence is available there is no value attached to oral evidence on that count.

The second point that was argued by Mr. Nanda is that Consumer Protection Act could not be invoked for the reason that Municipality by supplying water on payment of charges was not providing a service and that this was a facility extended for the benefit of the citizens. We are unable to appreciate the contention for the reason that a promise of serving is made to a citizen on the condition that he deposits a particular amount and the citizen is left bewildered by not fulfilling this promise. One can only guess as to what could happen to a marriage party when a service of the nature undertaken is not made available. That also provides us a piece of circumstances to adjudge the type of humiliation and harassment to which the respondent by this neglect of the appellant has been subjected to and that circumstances itself is enough justification for awarding compensation. From our point of view the Divisional Forum has rightly passed the order under appeal and we confirm it.

NOW this is yet another case in the series of cases in which the public exchequer will be required to bear the burnt because of lock of supervision and control on the employees by the Municipality and because of utmost unconcern shown by its employees towards the citizens. A citizen is entitled to a service if it is promised to him on a condition and once he fulfil is that condition there is a duty cast on the Municipality to perform its part of duty. We would, therefore, direct that this amount shall be paid by the Municipality as directed by the Divisional Forum but the Municipality shall conduct an enquiry as to where its machinery has failed and who if any is responsible for the lapse. After locating the responsibility those functionaries who are found responsible for the neglect individually or collectively shall be made to pay this amount towards the Municipal Corporation. Appeal has no merit. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.