Asstt. Engineer, Sub-division Iv, Cpwd Vs. C.D. Jha - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 2(1)(d) - comparative citation: 1998 (2) cpj 7a.p. chowdhri, president: 1. mr. c.d. jha, who was complainant before the district forum-ii, was a government employee. he was living in quarter no. 551, sector ix, r.k. puram, new delhi, allotted to him by the government on payment of licence fee. on 8.12.1991 at about 4.30 p.m. a portion of the ceiling approximately one metre in diameter and 2 inches thick fell down in the kitchen, resulting in damage of some utensils, etc. lying there. he lodged a report with the cpwd enquiry, sector ix, who were responsible for maintenance and upkeep of the quarter. repairs were carried out after one year on 19.12.1992. he filed a complaint for compensation on account of damage suffered by him. the case was contested. on a consideration of the material before it. district forum-ii held that the complainant was 'consumer' as defined in the consumer protection act, that the incident took place on account of poor maintenance. in the facts and circumstances, the district forum determined the compensation to be rs. 2,000/- including costs of the proceedings and accordingly/directed the opposite parties to pay the said amount. aggrieved by the order the opposite parties have preferred this appeal. 2. we have heard mr. rajesh saxena, advocate for the appellants. none appeared for the respondent at the time of hearing. we have, however, carefully gone through the records. 3. the main contention of mr. saxena is that there is no arrangement of hiring of service for consideration as between the complainant and the appellants and therefore, the complainant was not 'consumer' as defined in the act. he placed reliance on nagar palika, hissar (haryana) v. nathu ram goel, 1986-94 consumer 299 nc, and consumer unity trust society, japiur v. state of rajasthan and anr., 1986-94 consumer 815 nc. we are of the view that the complainant fell within the purview of the definition of 'consumer' as defined in the act. the complainant was paying licence fee for use of the house. it is also not disputed that the opposite parties were required to and in fact, had been carrying out maintenance work periodically. the payment of the licence fee amounted to consideration for hiring the said service. we have not been referred to any provision in the act exempting any government department per se. the authorities relied on by mr. saxena do not apply. in nagar palika, hissar, the question arose in the context of municipal committee, hissar and it was held that payment of property tax under the municipal act did not amount to consideration for hiring or availing of service. payment of tax is an altogether different matter compared to payment of licence fee for occupation of a house. the decision of consumer unity and trust society case related to medical treatment in government hospitals. it is well-known that in the case of indian medical association v. v.p. shanta, the supreme court has held that even government hospitals fall within the purview of the act except those hospitals where services are provided free of charge to all categories of patients. to that extent, the aforesaid decision stands over-ruled. in any case, the authority does not advance the case of the present appellants which stands on a different footing. we had occasion to consider a similar question in appeal t.r. naval v. union of india, appeal no. a-68/94 decided on 2.8.1996 where the ceiling fan in a government house fell down on account of poor maintenance. we came to the conclusion that failure to maintain the fan resulting in shock to the occupants amounted to deficiency in service. we have no reason to take different view in the present case. 4. nothing has been brought to our notice to interfere with the amount of compensation given. in the course of the order of the district forum it has been noted that in a letter dated 7.1.1994 sent by the xen, maintenance division, it was stated that the quarters in question were very old and had almost outlived their useful life span. falling of the plaster from the ceiling could not, therefore, be anticipated in advance. we wish to point out that the responsibility for better maintenance is all the greater in the case of buildings which have become old. it is clearly the duty of the department of the government to maintain the houses as long as they are allowed to be occupied by human beings so that they do not suffer because of portions of the roof or ceiling falling on their heads. we do not accept the argument that looseness of the portion of the ceiling could not be anticipated. a proper maintenance includes careful inspection of the building so as to carry out timely repairs where- ever it is suspected that some portions have become weak for some reason or the other. for these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal. it is, accordingly dismissed with no further order as to costs. a copy of the order be communicated to both the parties as well as district forum-ii. appeal dismissed.