GIAN CHAND MITTAL vs VICE-CHAIRMAN, D.D.A.

THIS is an appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 3rd July, 1990.

BRIEFLY, the facts are that the appellant is owner of House No. 122, Sreshtha Vihar, New Delhi, It is alleged that the Delhi Development Authority hereinafter referred to as D.D.A. began deep sewerage work of laying the main sewerage line in front of his house. It is further alleged that the Contractor did not take proper care to do the work and a lot of water and sand flowed constantly from his house into the trench, on account of which the foundation of the house was damaged badly. The house developed cracks at several places including the boundary wall. Consequently, he claimed Rs. 84,000/''- on account of damages. The complaint was contested by the respondent who pleaded that the District Forum bad no jurisdiction to try the complaint as the complainant was not a consumer. It was further pleaded that the work of laying down sewerage was not taken up in a slip-shod manner. The damage to the boundary wall and the house of the complainant might have been due to some deficiency in the specification of the material used for construction of the house. It is next pleaded that the sewerage line was laid after cutting even the metalled portion of the road so that there should be no damage of any type to the buildings. The damage is not due to any act of the respondent.

The learned District Forum directed the defendant to repair the boundary wall of the complainant within a month of the date of the order. However, the damages claimed by the complainant were not granted to him. The complainant has come up in appeal against the said order to this Commission. D.D.A. has filed cross objections against the order.

IT is contended on behalf of the D.D.A. that the appellant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and therefore, he has no right to file this appeal. We have duly considered the arguments and find force in it. The word ''consumer'' has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) which is as follows: "consumer" means any person who - (i) xxxxxx (ii) hires any services for a consideration It is evident from the above definition that a person who hires the services of another is a consumer.

IN the present case, there is no allegation of the complainant much less proof, that he hired services of the D.D.A. for doing any work. Merely because the D.D.A. is laying down the sewerage line for the benefit of the owners of the houses, it cannot be held that its services have been hired by the complainant. IN the circumstances, the appellant is not a ''consumer''. Therefore, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to try the complaint. As we have held that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to try the complaint, it is not necessary to decide the appeal on merit. Now we advert to the cross objections. In view of the fact that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to try the complaint, it could not direct the D.D.A. to repair the boundary wall of the complainant. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this part of the order of the District Forum is liable to be set-aside. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the appeal. We however, accept the cross objections and dismiss the complaint of the appellant In toto. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. _______________