BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.462/11
Dated this the 30th day of April 2012
( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB. : President)
Smt. Jayasree Kallat, M.A. : Member
Sri. L. Jyothikumar, B.A., LLB. : Member
ORDER
By L.Jyothikumar, Member.
The petition was filed on 19.11.11. The case of the complainant is that she had decided to drug the bore well in her house plot. So she had submitted an application before the opposite party. On the basis of this application opposite party had visited the plot and certified that the place was feasible for drilling a bore well. On the basis of the report issued by the opposite party she had entrusted the work for construction of the bore well to one private agency for an amount of Rs.30,000/-. But the work was a failure. The complainant is alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Complainant has suffered financially due to the deficient act of the opposite party. Hence this petition is filed seeking relief.
Notice was served to the opposite party. Opposite party has filed version denying the averments in the complaint.. According to opposite party this complaint is not maintainable in law or facts. Ground water department is the nodal agency in the State for the monitoring and management of ground water. The major activities of the department include well siting for individuals and farmers and bore well constructs. For this the individuals have to submit an application along with Rs.300/-being the investigation charges. If the site is feasible for drilling a bore well the same is intimated to the applicant. If the applicant is willing to carry out the work a detailed estimate amount is to be paid and also to execute an agreement. After the construction of the well by the department, if it is a failure 75% of the remitted drilling amount will be refunded to the applicant. Here complainant paid an amount of Rs.300/-towards the investigation charges for carrying out an investigation for the construction of a bore well. It can not be predicted with certainty that water will be available on the site but can only spot this area where water will be available as per the available knowledge and technical equipments with the department. Hence a certain percentage of failure is inevitable in ground water investigation. Taking these aspects into consideration the department has decided to reimburse 75% of the drilling expenses when water was not available after drilling provided the work is carried out by the department. The petitioner had not entrusted the drilling work to the department. Opposite party had informed the risk factor to the complainant. There was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Opposite party is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. Hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief sought in the petition?
No oral evidence adduced by either the complainant or opposite party. Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.300/- towards the investigation charge. Opposite party had given a report after investigation. There is no case for the complainant that the opposite party had assured that there will be cent percent success. In such circumstances and in view of the specific case of the opposite party that the science of hydrogeology and the equipments available can only locate probable area where water will be available and that there can be no cent percent certainty. More over the complainant has not approached the department to do the drilling work. The drilling was done by a private party. In the circumstances we find that no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the opposite party.
Pronounced in the open court this the 30th day of April 2012.
Date of filing:19.11.2011.
SD/- PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER SD/- MEMBER
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
