1. Brief facts mentioned in the complaint titled above are that complainants are residents of Street No. 3 Gulraiz Colony Multan but the defendants during the last ten years have neither provided clean water nor have constructed sewerage line in the aforementioned street, although the defendants are receiving bill from the complainants regularly. Due to obstruction of water in this street complainant spent an amount of Rs. 80,000/- in the year 2006 for drainage of the street water but the system failed because there was no proper system of cleanliness. Complainant's thereafter spent an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- from his own pocket, the defendant promised to compensate the complainant verbally but neither they have redressed the grievance of the complainant nor they have paid any amount to the complainant and similarly defendant have not tried to make the service better . It is also mentioned in the complaint that due to stagnant sewerage water in the street complainant has suffered mental torture besides so many cracks in the building of the complainant's house. It has been prayed that direction for registration of case may be issued as there is serious apprehension of falling any child in the dirty stagnant water. It has been further prayed that the defendants be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3, 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant and also to rectify the drainage system. The defendant No. 1 & 2 submitted joint written statement denying averments of the complaint.
2. 2 The complainant produced evidence in support of his case as under: PW1 Dr. Muhammad Mohsin Khan (complainant) stated on oath that he moved successive applications for sewerage and water connection and that he is paying advance bill to the defendant since 2006. He added that legal notice was also served by him upon the defendant but no response was given by the defendants. The witness (complainant) states further that his grievance is very simple as he is making advance payment of bill but defendant are not going to provide the facility of sewerage water pipe to the complainant. He states that he constructed the sewerage line of his house from his own expenses as such the defendants be directed to pay compensation of Rs. Two crore since the complainant also sustained mental torture due to negligence of the defendants. He produced documents EXP1, EXP2, EXP3, EXP4 (copies of applications addressed to MD WASA). He also produced EXP5, EXP6, EXP7, EXP8 (copies of payment receipts), he further produced copy of legal notice EXP9, receipts EXP10 to EXP12, copy of letter EXP13 and postal receipt EXP14 and closed evidence in this complaint on 19.6.2009.
3. 3 On the other hand, DW1 Muhammad Asif Javed Deputy Director WASA Multan stated on oath that he visited the site in front of the complainant's house and found that sewerage water of nearby houses was falling in the main sewerage line of WASA at a distance of about 100 to 150 feet approximately from the complainant's house. He also stated that whenever any complaint is received regarding obstruction of sewer pipe it is removed by WASA. He also states that no offer was made by WASA to make payment of expenses spent by the complainant in construction of sewer pipe. He states further that no damage has been caused to the complainant's house due to overflow of water and nor any such complaint has been received from the complainant. He categorically states that no legal notice prior to the institution of this complaint was ever served by the complainant upon the defendants. He further states that water is passing through sewer pipe smoothly and is falling in the main sewerage line of WASA. Malik Abdul Khaliq Advocate learned counsel for the defendants closed evidence on 26.6.2009.
4. Arguments of the complainant and that addressed by learned counsel for the defendants are as under: Complainant argued that he spent a huge amount in construction of sewerage line in front of his house with verbal approval of the defendant but defendant has not repaid the amount so spent despite verbal promise and that the defendants even failed to construct its own standard sewerage line for the rectification of complainant's problem. He added that he is entitled to recover damages from the defendants and that case may also be registered against the defendant.
4. 5 On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants argued that complainant has failed to comply with the provisions of the Act and even failed to deliver legal notice to the defendants before institution of this complaint. He added that there is not overflow of water in front of complainant's house and the water of complainant's sewer pipe is smoothly falling in the main sewerage line of WASA at a distance of about 100 to 150 feet.
5. 6 Arguments so addressed by either side have been considered, record has been perused and the same reveals that entire grievance of the complainant is that complainant spent a huge amount in the construction of sewer pipe line in front of his house in 2006 but the defendant is not going to make payment of such expenses to the complainant despite verbal promise and nor the defendants are going to construct its own standard sewerage pipe line in front of complainant's house and that due to defective system of drainage damage has been caused to the building of the complainant's house but evidence of the complainant reveals that he has not uttered even a single word regarding any damage to the building. At the most he has claimed compensation for mental torture. Moreover entire complaint is silent about the delivery of legal notice to the defendants required under the law. At the most complainant while making statement as PW1 states that he served legal notice EXP9 upon the defendant. He has subsequently tendered postal receipt EXP14 regarding dispatch of legal notice. Both the documents have been perused which reveal that the legal notice was drafted on 02.3.2009 but the same was dispatched through postal service on 09.3.2009. It is significant to mention here that complaint so filed by the complainant was instituted in this court on 09.3.2009. Thus it is manifest that the complainant has failed to deliver the notice to the defendants before filing this complaint. Complaint appears to be time barred also because cause of action virtually arose in 2006 when the drainage system in front of complainant's house failed as per allegations contained in the complaint. Relevant to the situation are provisions of section 28 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 which reads as under: Sec. 28(1):- "A consumer who has suffered damage, or Authority in other cases, shall, by written notice, call upon a manufacturer or provider of services that a product or service is defective or faulty, or the conduct of the manufacturer or service provider is in contravention of the provisions of this Act and he should remedy the defects or give damages where the consumer has suffered damage, or cease to contravene the provisions of this Act.
(2) "The Manufacturer or service provider shall, within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice, reply thereto".
(3) "No claim shall be entertained by a Consumer Court unless the consumer or the Authority has given notice under sub-section
(1) and provides proof that the notice was duly delivered but the manufacturer or service provider has not responded thereto."
(4) "A claim by the consumer or the Authority shall be filed within thirty days of the arising of the cause of action: Provided that Consumer Court, having jurisdiction to hear the claim, may allow a claim to be filed after thirty days within such time as it may allow if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the specified period; Provided further that the date of purchase of the products or providing of services."
6. 7 In the light of above discussion is manifest that claim of the complainant cannot be entertained by this court mainly because the same is time barred and that the complainant has also failed to provide proof that notice required by law was duly delivered by him to the defendants. Hence the complaint stands declined. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room after its due completion. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.