LUCKNOW JAL SANSTHAN vs JUSTICE J.S. TRIVEDI

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.5.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Lucknow-I in Complaint Case No. 426/1989.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant is the owner of the house situated at 6, Rani Laxmi Bai Marg which has on its two sides sewage lines which pour into sewer right in front of this house. THE sewer line is permanently choked on account of which dirty water and other filthy materials spill out all over the place and in front of the entrance of the house of the complainant. THE family of the complainant and others living in the vicinity have been put to inconvenience and hardship. The opposite parties are obliged under law to provide the services of cleaning the sewage for which sewage charges are levied. Continuous choking of sewage is a health hazard and can lead to outbreak of epidemic. A number of reports have been made to opposite parties for removal of this deficiency but no heed has been paid. The complainant has to engage work-force at own cost to get the area cleaned but the permanent relief can only be provided by the opposite parties by undertaking the work by professionals appointed for the purpose. The sewer water may also seep into the foundation of the complainant''s house and may damage it. The complainant had lodged a claim before the District Consumer Forum to order for removal of deficiency stated above and clean the sewage around the complainant''s house and ensure its free flow. Adequate compensation was also demanded from the opposite parties.

The opposite party, Jal Sansthan, Lucknow filed the written statement. In their written statement before the Forum it was stated that as per officials of the Jal Sansthan there is no sewer problem on the spot in question. Only one galipit was choked which has been cleaned out. The residents of the locality are required to move a fresh application. Then only tenders will be invited and estimates can be sanctioned. It is the duty of the residents of the area to ensure that the open Nala is covered. The local Executive Engineer has been asked to conduct inquiry and ensure compliance. An affidavit was also filed by the General Manager of the opposite party Jal Sansthan stating therein that there is no problem of sewer water at present and the galipit has been cleaned out. Because of water logging and insufficient drainage there has been collection of water and removal of this is the responsibility of the Nagar Palika.

THE Nagar Mahapalika, another opposite party, did not contest the case before the District Consumer Forum inspite of the fact that the service was affected on them. After hearing the complainant and the opposite party, Jal Sansthan, the District Consumer Forum came to the conclusion that Jal Sansthan was deficient in its service and remained silent for a pretty long time and the problem was rectified only after many months. The complaint was, therefore, partly decreed against both the opposite parties and the opposite parties were jointly and severally directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant.

AGGRIEVED of this order of the learned District Forum, the opposite party Jal Sansthan has come in this appeal. Notices were issued to the opposite parties in the month of August, 2001 for the next date on 18.10.2001. Since then continuous dates had been fixed, but none was present on 6.2.2002. We, therefore, propose to decide the case on the basis of evidence available on the appeal file. A perusal of the judgment and order goes to show that the complainant has been making representations against the bad sewer conditions in front of his house for quite some time and no attention was paid, as requested. It was only after the claim was lodged before the District Consumer Forum that the opposite parties came into action. This clearly proves from the affidavit filed by the General Manager of Jal Sansthan in which it has been stated that the closed galipit has been cleaned out and the pipeline has been set right so that the sewer water may flow smoothly. It has also been stated in the affidavit that the removal of water logging was the function of the Nagar Mahapalika and inspite of this, some remedial measures have been taken.

IN the memo of appeal it has been stated by the opposite party, Jal Sansthan, that compensation of Rs. 1,000/- awarded was not based on proper facts and circumstances of the case. There has been no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

THE opposite party Jal Sansthan is the corporate body enacted by the State Government with a view to supply water and to look after the sewer system. THE Jal Sansthan imposes sewer charges on the consumers. In the instant case the complainant has been making representations to the opposite parties but no heed was paid in regard to the removal of the blockage of the sewer line. It was only when a claim was filed before the District Consumer Forum that the field officers of the opposite party swung into action and removed the defects. THErefore, there has been deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Above all, it is worthwhile to mention that the judgment and order is dated 13.5.1992. The appeal was filed on 29.8.1992. The delay of more than 1 months has not been explained. It is not understood as to how the approval of the higher authorities took such a long time in filing the appeal. Day-to-day explanation has not been provided. The appeal is, therefore, time-barred.

In view of the above there is no reason to interfere in the judgment and order passed by the learned District Forum and the same is liable to be upheld and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Consumer Forum are confirmed. There will be no order as to the costs. Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from today. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.