25 years on, high court upholds finding, says state was negligent

Nearly 25 years after Haryana challenged its liability for the collapse of two village houses, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has closed the door on the dispute after holding that “no flaw, much less perversity, has been pointed out”.

The assertion came as the Bench dismissed a regular second appeal filed in 2001 after asserting that the state’s negligence was based on tangible and unrebutted evidence, including the site plan, witness testimony, and the authorities’ admitted failure to act on repeated complaints of leakage in village water pipelines.

“The negligence of the defendants is based on tangible evidence such as site plan, witness statements, and the admitted failure of the authorities to act on repeated complaints. Both the courts (below) found the chain of causation between leakage and structural deterioration duly established,” Justice Deepak Gupta ruled.

The genesis of the case lies in a 1993 civil suit filed by Balbir Singh seeking Rs 2 lakh in compensation after walls of his two houses at Bichpari village in Gohana tehsil collapsed allegedly due to leakage from PVC pipelines laid down by the Public Health Department. The trial court decreed the suit in August 1999, holding that the structural damage was the result of the state’s failure to repair the leaking supply lines, despite oral and written complaints.

“The trial court recorded a categorical finding that the collapse of the plaintiff’s houses was directly attributable to negligence on the part of the defendants in maintaining and repairing the leaking water supply pipelines. The trial court awarded a compensation of Rs 2,00,000, along with interest at 12 per cent per annum vide judgment dated August 14, 1999,” the judge observed.

The state’s first appeal met the same fate when the Additional District Judge dismissed it on October 17, 2000, while affirming findings on negligence, causation, and the quantum of loss, following which the state approached the high court in 2001.

As the second appeal came up for adjudication, the court observed the state’s counsel could not demonstrate even an arguable substantial question of law. “The state counsel argued that the courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence. However, when specifically queried by this court, the counsel fairly conceded that the appeal arises purely from concurrent findings of fact and that no substantial question of law is even arguable,” the Bench said.

Dismissing the appeal, it concluded that the findings were based on correct application of law. No material irregularity or legal infirmity was shown. “Once the first appellate court, being the final court of facts, has upheld the trial court’s findings, this court cannot substitute its own view merely because another conclusion is possible,” the Bench concluded.