JUDGMENT Pratima Malhotra, Member.—This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 6-11-1992 passed by the District Forum, Bilaspur dismissing his complaint No 10 of 1991. 2. The facts giving cause to this appeal are that the complainant/ appellant is residing in Quarter No, 22, D/5, Changer Sector, Bilaspur, which is a Government accommodation allotted to him. The sewerage pipe-line of Forest Department passes underneath the courtyard of the above quarter by the side of the kitchen which had been leaking for the past many months and the night soils used to come out giving foal smell as well as creating unhealthy environment which caused the appellant to suffer Tuberculosis. He filed the complaint on 20-12-1991 for immediate repairs by both the respondents and later on he filed another application on 24-1-1992 for compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000, as he has to take medicines and good food an4 he has to look after eight members of his family. Later-on, on 22-8-1992 he again filed an application that for this amount of Rs. 50,000 the respondent No 2 who had misled him and did not repair the sewerage pipe immediately should be burdened with. 3. Both the respondents had filed their replies The respondent No. 1 had categorically denied the allegations and stated that the complainant/ appellant has been working as a laboratory technician in T. B.. Hospital, Bilaspur The pipe-line was repaired on 1-11-1991 and again on 24-2-1992. He also stated that whenever any complaint was made, he attended to it with despath. It is alleged that the complainant/appellant himself damaged the pipe by digging the soil for his kitchen garden. Respondent No. 2, who has been impleaded by name, specifically denied the allegations and stated that he visited the spot and had informed the complainant/ appellant that actually this work was to be done by the Irrigation and Public Health Department but still he attended to it. There was no misleading statement by him and he did not state anything incorrect to the complainant/appellant. 4. The complainant/appellant had filed a medical certificate of Dist. Tuberculosis Officer, T. B. Centre, Bilaspur saying that the prolonged stay in unhygenic atmosphere leads to lowering resistance and may cause tuber culosis". The appellant himself is a Laboratory Technician in T. B. Centre, Bilaspur. 4. The complainant/appellant had filed a medical certificate of Dist. Tuberculosis Officer, T. B. Centre, Bilaspur saying that the prolonged stay in unhygenic atmosphere leads to lowering resistance and may cause tuber culosis". The appellant himself is a Laboratory Technician in T. B. Centre, Bilaspur. It has not come in evidence as to what exactly is the stage of the disease and since when he is suffering from A bald statement that he is suffering from T. B. is no cogent evidence. The allegation of T. B. having been caused due solely to the leakage of sewerage pipe has not been proved Mere allegation without proof cannot make the other person liable for any damage/compensation. It is to be noted that in the First instance he did not claim any compensation and only prayed for repairs to be carried out on priority basis The compensation is an after thought. The second allegation specifically against the respondent No. 2 also is not proved by any cogent evidence. The sewerage pipe was repaired by the Divisional Forest Officer on 15-2-1991 through Shri Sukhvir, Sweeper on payment of an amount of Rs. 200 and through Shri Vidya Sagar, Sweeper on J 5-1-1992 for Rs. 219. Both of them have sworn the above facts in affidavits filed in the District Consumer Forum, Bilaspur. 5. The appellant/complainant was" present on 16-8-1993 to argue his appeal. Though admitting that the sewerage pipe is no longer causing him any trouble and was duly repaired, he still persisted for compensation of Rs. 50,000 on account of his having contracted Tuberculosis. 6. In the light of the above and having gone through the record of the Forum below, we find that the complaint has rightly been rejected. We also see no ground mustered in appeal to disagree with that finding. There being no infirmity in the impugned order dated the 6th November, 1992, this appeal is dismissed without any order regarding costs Announced at Shimla on this 3rd day of September, 1993. Appeal dismissed.