By Smt. E. Ayishakutty, Member,

1. Complaint in brief is as follows:

Complainant entrusted opposite party to dig a borewell in his premises on 18-12-2008. The total charges for the work is fixed as Rs.16,650/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand six hundred and fifty only). The rate fixed as Rs.52/feet for drilling, Rs.200/feet for installing PVC pipe and Rs.250/- as batta. As per the condition opposite party drilled 200 feet and installed 30 feet PVC pipe in the borewell and collected the total amount of Rs.16,650/- on the day itself. Then complainant engaged one Haneefa who is an electrician and plumper with two others to insert and fix the motor in the well. But they found that the motor could not be inserted. Complainant intimated this to opposite party and he came to the site and examined the well. He told the complainant about the need of some additional work for correcting the well. It needs some additional charges of Rs.5,650/-. Opposite party has done this additional work also and collected Rs.5,650/-. After the work opposite party conformed the complainant that he could never have any problem to insert the motor in the well. Even the additional work has also done the motor could be installed in the well. Complainant again approached opposite party and told to solve the problem. But opposite party neglected the grievance of complainant. Then complainant has no other way to solve his problem, he approached "Pioneer Borewell" and engaged them to correct the well which was drilled by opposite party. For correcting the work and for installing 57 feet PVC pipe "Pioneer Borewell " demanded Rs.18,390/-. Complainant entrusted them to do the work and paid Rs.18,390/- to them. The bad and improper work of opposite party caused heavy financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Therefore he filed this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.

2. Complainant prays for directing opposite party to give him Rs.24,400/- for his financial loss and Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as compensation.

3. Opposite party filed version. He admits the entrustment of the work and the amount fixed for the work. Opposite party has taken the work by fixing the charges as Rs.52/feet for digging the well, and Rs.200/feet for installing PVC pipe and Rs.250/- as batta. As per this rate opposite party has to receive a total amount of Rs.16,650/- for the work. The main contention raised by opposite party is that he has not received the full amount even though the work was completed. Opposite party has received Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) from the complainant towards Rs.16,650/-. So a dispute arose between them regarding the balance amount of Rs.6,650/-. It is stated that the work has not completed because of this balance amount. Opposite party denied the additional work and the payment of Rs.5,650/- by complainant. He also denies the receipts of Ext.A2 by saying that these receipt are not issued by the opposite party. Opposite party contends that due tot he work of him there is nothing happened to the complainant and he has not financial loss and mental agony. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite party hence the complaint is dismissed with cost of opposite party.

4. Complainant filed affidavit and documents to prove his case. Ext.A1 to A6 marked on the side of him. Opposite party filed affidavit. No documents produced. No oral evidence adduced both sides.

5. The main points to consider in this case is that whether opposite party is deficient in his service if so what is the relief and cost.

6. Opposite party admits the entrustment of the work. The amount fixed Rs.16,650/- is also admitted. Ext.A2 series are payment receipts which show that complainant has paid entire amount. But opposite party objected the payment receipts raising that it is only a piece of paper. Opposite party contends that though work was completed complainant paid only Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only). No documents to show that opposite party received Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) which means that opposite party is not in the habit of issuing receipt for the payment received. It is usual that traders or service providers issue such chit/piece of papers while receiving payment towards sale of goods or providing service. Though opposite party contends to have received Rs.10,000/- he has no case that he issued proper receipt while receiving payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only). Therefore Ext.A2 can be believed.

7. Complainant states that though the work was completed it was not fit to be used since the motor could not be inserted and fixed in the well. Hence the complainant again paid Rs.5,650/- to opposite party for correcting the well. Even though the additional work also to be done it was not fit for use. But opposite party contends that the work was not completed. The learned counsel of opposite party argued that the work was incomplete due to the non payment of the balance amount. Though opposite party has contended that complainant has not paid the full amount he has raised this contention only in Ext.A6 reply notice dated, 16-01-2009. Opposite party did not make any demand for payment of this balance prior to Ext.A6. He has not taken any steps to recover this balance from the complainant till this date. So we infer that there is no such balance to be paid by complainant.

8. In the 7^th para of the version opposite party admits the statement of the complainant that "കിണര്‍ കുഴിച്ച് കഴിഞ്ഞ് പരിശോധിച്ചതില്‍ കിണറില്‍ മോട്ടോര്‍ വെക്കുന്നതില്‍ പ്രശ്നമില്ലെന്ന് കാണുകയും ചെയ്തു എന്ന ഹരജി പ്രസ്താവന ശരിയാണ്." But in the 5^th para of the version opposite party says that "ബാക്കി സംഖ്യയായ 6,650/– രൂപ കൂടി നല്‍കുവാന്‍ ഹരജിക്കാരനോട് ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടതില്‍ ഹരജിക്കാരനും എതൃകക്ഷിയും തമ്മില്‍ തര്‍ക്കമുണ്ടാവുകയും ചെയ്തിട്ടുളളതാണ്. ഇങ്ങനെ പണം നല്‍കാത്തതു മൂലമാണ് ബാക്കി ജോലി ചെയ്യാതെ വന്നിട്ടുളളത്." Though opposite party contends that he completed the boring of the well in 5^th para it is affirmed that the work was left unfinished only because complainant failed to pay the balance. These contradictory statements of opposite party reveals that the case of complainant to be more probable and true. Even though the complainant expensed a huge amount to dig the borewell he could not achieve his purpose. The irresponsible and improper work of opposite party caused the complainant a heavy financial loss. Therefore we have no hesitation to come tot he conclusion that opposite party has not done the work properly, but he had collected the total amount of the work and abandoned the complainant on the way. So we have no doubt to hold that opposite party is deficient in his service. Since opposite party refused to complete the work, complainant entrusted "Pioneer Borewell" to rectify the defects of the well which was done by opposite party. Complainant paid Rs.18,390/- for this work. Part of the work was already done by opposite party and complainant had to do only rectification work by the Pioneer Borewell. Hence the claim of complainant for the total refund is untenable. In our opinion opposite party is liable to pay Rs.18,390/- spend by the complainant for further work.

9. In the result we allow the complaint and order that opposite party shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.18,390/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand three hundred and ninety only) together with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Dated this 2^nd day of February, 2010.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A6]

Ext.A1 : Conditions of Borewell digging given by opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A2 : Paper slips (2 Nos.) given by opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A3 : Estimate dated, 17-12-2008 for Rs.18,390/- from Pioneer Borewells to complainant.

Ext.A4 : Quotation from Siraj Electricals, Padapparamba to complainant.

Ext.A5 : Photo copy of the lawyer notice dated, 06-01-2009 issued by complainant’s

Advocate to opposite party.

Ext.A6 : Reply notice (registered with A/D) dated, 16-01-2009 by opposite party’s

Advocate to complainant’s advocate.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER