MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI (W.D. And D.V.) vs NARINDER KUMAR ROHTAGI

THIS apeal has been filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum by which compensation of Rs. 1,000/- has been granted to the complainant against them and they have been directed to take immediate steps for supplying water free from impurities to the complainant.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant has got a municipal water connection at his house. It is alleged that he was being supplied contaminated water and inspite of his requests the quality of water was not improved by the opposite party. Consequently, he took a sample of the water front that tap for laboratory test and filed a complaint before the District Forum-1 for directing the respondent to take steps for supplying pure and uncontaminated water and pay damages. It is further alleged that on account of contaminated water the complainant and the members of his family suffered ailments and he had to incuran expenditure of about Rs. 3,000/- on treatments. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the appellant has not filed the certified copy of the order of the District Forum and consequently the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this short ground. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent and seen the file. It is not disputed that the photostat copy of the order has been placed on the record by the appellant. Rule 8(3) of the Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 prescribes the procedure for the appeals. It says that each memorandum shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the order of the District Forum. As the appellant has not filed the certified copy of the order of the District Forum, therefore, the appeal is not a proper appeal in the eye of law and is liable to be dismissed on this short ground.

However, we have also examined the appeal on the merits. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the sample which was produced before the District Forum should have been got tested from the laboratory and the Members of the District Forum on visual inspection of the water could not hold that it was contaminated. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on II (1991) CPJ 367 State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector & Ors. v. Ram Mitra Pidiha.

WE have duly considered the argument but regret our inability to accept the same. The District Forum in the impugned order has mentioned that the sample brought before it was so dirty that it was not considered necessary to send it for the laboratory test. In our view the reasoning of the District Forum is perfectly correct. One of the property of the pure water is that it should be transparent. In case it is found to have mud or other indissoluble impurities which can be detected by the naked eye it cannot be said that it is pure water. In that situation it is not necessary to send it for laboratory test. There is even no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, which makes it mandatory that the sample of water should be got tested in laboratory. Reference may be to Section 13(c) of the Consumer Protection Act which provides that where the Consumer alleges defects in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test the District Forum shall refer the sample to proper laboratories for testing. A reading of the Section shows that the goods are to be referred to a laboratory only if the alleged defects cannot be determined without analysis or test of the goods and not otherwise. The case of Ram Mitra Pidiha (supra) referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellant does not help him. The learned Commission, after examining Section 13, came to the same conclusion as mentioned above. Consequently we reject the submission of the Counsel for the appellant. Faced with this situation Mr. Kohli sought to argue that the sample was not obtained by the Court through a Commission but it was taken and produced by the complainant-respondent. Therefore, no reliance should be placed on that sample. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the argument, but do not find any substance in it also Section 13(c) provides that the sample of the goods is to be obtained by the Forum through the complainant and not through other agency. The complainant is a respectable person and his state- ment that he took the sample from the hydrant in dispute cannot be disbelieved. It cannot be expected from him that he would produce the sample of the water from other tap.

THE complainant has produced a certificate from Dr. Sarvesh Kumar, MBBS. He has stated in the Certificate that he was the authorized medical attendant of the complainant and his family members by virtue of his being the Lecturer in Law, Campus Law Center, Delhi University and that he had been advising the complainant, his wife, his daughter and maid servant not to use the unfiltered tap water, as they had frequent and persistent complaints of water borne diseases since the end of 1989. It is thus clear from the report that the complainant and his family members suffered from diseases on account of contaminated water. Sh. Satish Pandey, a neighbour of the complainant swore an affidavit that the complainant and his family including maid servant fell ill and had to spend huge amount on treatment. Similar is the affidavit of Sh. Surinder Mohan Mittal, Advocate who is also the neighbour of the complainant. After taking into consideration the said affidavits we are of the view that the amount of Rs. 1,000/- granted to the complainant cannot be said to be on the higher side. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with costs. Costs Rs. 500/- Appeal dismissed with costs.