25 years on, High Court upholds negligence finding against Haryana

Nearly 25 years after the State of 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 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 case before then high court has its genesis in a 1993 civil suit filed by Balbir Singh seeking Rs 2 lakh in compensation after walls of his two houses in Bichpari village in Gohana tehsil collapsed allegedly due to persistent leakage from PVC pipelines laid by the Public Health Department. The trial court decreed the suit in August 1999, holding that the structural damage was the direct result of the State’s failure to repair the leaking water 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 compensation of Rs 2,00,000, along with interest at 12 per cent per annum vide judgment dated August 14, 1999,” Justice Gupta 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, Justice Gupta 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, 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 added

Dismissing the appeal, the Bench concluded that the findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and 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.