KRISHAN KUMAR JAIN vs VICE CHAIRMAN, D.D.A.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant purchased a plot No. E-189 in Phase-I, Ashok Vihar from Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and he constructed a house on that plot. One of the sides of the plot abuts on a park which was developed by DDA and handed over to Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Now it is maintained by MCD. It is alleged that on account of percolation of water from the park the base and flooring of the adjoining rooms have been seriously damaged, and the damage is so great that the property requires re-construction.

IT is further pleaded that the complainant got the floors of the house re-laid in or about 1984. However, in 1990 again the floors and the walls of the house have been damaged. Consequently, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to take remedial action to prevent percolation of the water in the building and pay damages/compensation of Rs. 3,25,000/- suffered by him due to the negligence of the DDA / MCD. The complaint was contested by both the respondents. They have inter-alia pleaded that the complainant does not fall within the definition of the word ''consumer''. They further pleaded that the complainant was not entitled to any damages/compensation as claimed by him.

The first question that arises Re-determination is, whether the complainant is a ''consumer''. The case of the complainant is that while the park is watered by the maintenance staff of the park, the water percolates in the fountain and the base of his building and damaged its base and flooring. The allegations in the complaint show that the complainant claims damages from the respondents on account of tortious act of the respondent and not for deficiency in any service to which he is entitled from them. Consequently, in our view, he is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.

BEFORE parting with the order it may be mentioned that the MCD got removed the hydrant installed near house of the complainant and also got earth filled alongwith the foundation of his house to avoid any litigation. In view of the reason that we have held that the complainant is not a ''consumer''. It is not necessary to decide how much loss he suffered on account of percolation of water.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we dismiss the complaint on the preliminary objection of the respondents that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The complainant may, if so advised, file a Civil Suit for recovery of the damages against the respondent. No order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.