PANKAJ NIGAM vs CHAIRMAN NAGAR PALIKA BARABANKI

1. HEARD Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arun Tandon, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nagar Palika, Navabganj, Barabanki and its officials namely the Chairman and Executive Officer and perused the record.

THE complainant appears to be aggrieved of the judgment dated 29. 8. 1992/5. 9. 1992 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Barabanki whereby his complaint for recovery of damages was dismissed on the ground that the kind of dispute brought forth before the District Consumer Forum was not cognizable. Shortly stated, it may be mentioned that the complainant Mr. Pankaj Nigam, Advocate had allegedly fallen into the manhole of a sewer tank as a result of which he suffered injuries and his photochromic spectacles were broken. The complainant claimed damages for the physical and mental sufferings, besides recovery of the price of his photochromic spectacles amounting to Rs. 150. The Nagar Palika Navabganj, Barabanki contested the complaint on the two-fold grounds - the first being that the complainant had filed his complaint with a view to wreak vengeance with the authorities of the Nagar Palika as he was annoyed with them on account of the litigation pending between his father and the Nagar Palika Navabganj, Barabanki; secondly there was no cogent piece of evidence to lend assurance to his plea of the accident.

Insofar as the finding of the District Consumer Forum that it was not competent to take cognizance of the matter is concerned, we would like to observe that the said finding was not based on a sound reasoning. Since, it is the liability of the Nagar Palika to keep its road and sewer line intact and out of the risk with lids on manholes, it is certainly liable and responsible for the accident of the kind if some injuries were caused to the victim of occurrence. It is a long settled view that the civic amenities must maintain all its establishments including roads, sewer lines and the modes of other facilities in the perfect manner so that the users and citizens availing such facilities are not put to physical or mental harm. If a manhole is without a lid and someone falls into it and breaks his leg, he would positively be entitled to claim damages from the civic authority as it is due to the negligence of its officials and employees on account of which the victim comes across the hazardous situation and suffers physical and mental injuries. Therefore, we do not agree with the conclusion drawn by the District Consumer Forum, Barabanki that the kind of dispute was not within its competence to be taken notice of.

HOWEVER, on the merit of the complaint, we endorse the judgment that the complainant miserably failed to establish its complaint case in the background of there being a litigation going on between his father and the Nagar Palika. The complainant was required to be put to strict proof of evidence. In case he had fallen into the manhole, he would have certainly suffered some injuries but neither he consulted any doctor nor obtained any medicine or prescription of the medicines. If his spectacles had broken he was expected to have obtained a report from some optician and the said report would have been a good piece of evidence. Not only that, he failed on all these counts to establish his complaint, but surprisingly he had also not considered it appropriate to either lodge an FIR with the police or file a private complaint in a Court of competent jurisdiction. Even a requisite notice was not despatched by him to the Nagar Palika authorities. Taking all these infirmities into consideration, we are of the decisive view that there was no merit in the complaint and, therefore, it deserves to be dismissed. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.