DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of April 2012
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 8/11/2010
(C.C.No.137/2010)
K.R.Udayabhanu
S/o.Late P.Ramachandran,
Vadakkeveedu,
Thennilapuram Amsam Desom,
Kavassery – II Village,
Alathur Taluk,
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.Sajan Philip)
V/s
The District Officer,
Ground Water Department
Palakkad. - Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt.SEENA.H. PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the complaint :
The complainant has filed application for digging a bore well in his property on 11/3/2009 to the opposite party. Complainant also paid Rs.300/- for surveying his property and fixing the peg mark. Thereafter the property was surveyed by the ground water authority and fixed the peg mark on eastern side of the property as per the directions of the complainant. On 20/1/2010 the complainant paid Rs.12,025/- through D.D. to the opposite party for digging the bore well in the place of peg mark. The opposite party dug in the place of pegmark and after 95 feets found water. At the same time the equipment using for digging the bore well was broken and fell in the well. Then the Engineer in the opposite party’s office consulted the Palakkad office and stated to the complainant that the well is not useful. There after the opposite party has removed the PVC Pipe in the well. After this incident the opposite party dug another bore well near the 1st bore well in 5 feets distance. The 2nd bore well dug without the consent of the complainant and by not fixing the peg mark. No water was found after digging the bore well under 175 feets near the 1st bore well in the distance of 10 meter. The complainant stated that the opposite party has dug two bore wells without the consent of the complainant and by not fixing the peg mark. Now the opposite party has fixed the peg mark in the property of the complainant without paying Rs.300/- Thereafter the opposite party has demanded the complainant to pay the amount for digging the bore well. The complainant is not ready to pay the amount because the opposite party has dug the bore well without the consent of the complainant two times. The complainant filed a complaint to the opposite party. There was no response. Thereafter the complainant has sent registered notice to the officer in State Ground Water Department and Minister of Ground Water Department on 25/5/2010. The office of the Minister of Ground water replied that the complaint was forwarded to the Director of Ground Water Department. Thereafter no reply was given by the opposite party. The acts of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite party to
1.To dig a new bore well for the amount already deposited by the complainant
or
2.Refund the estimated amount of Rs.12,325/- to the complainant
3.Cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party filed memo of appearance. Opposite party filed version, but no chief affidavit was filed. Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 to A7 marked on the side of complainant. Matter was heard.
On the appreciation of evidence complaint was once allowed by the Forum. Opposite party was ordered to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Matter was taken up in appeal. Hon’ble State Commission remitted back the matter to the Forum with direction to permit opposite party to adduce further evidence.
During the pendency of the proceedings opposite party filed a statement stating that the amount to be paid to the complainant on account of failure in digging the well. Complainant is also amenable for the settlement suggested by opposite party.
Hence complaint allowed as per the statement of opposite party. Amount to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per law. The statement of opposite party shall form part of the order.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of April 2012.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – DD counter foil of SBI for Rs.12085/- dt/20/1/10
Ext.A2 – Copy Letter issued by opposite party to the complainant dt.24/6/09
Ext.A3 – Copy Letter issued to opposite party by the complainant dt.8/2/10
Ext.A4 series –Copy of letter sent to Minister, Ground Water with postal
acknowledgment card and receipt
Ext.A5 – Postal receipt of letter sent to Director, Ground Water by the
complainant
Ext.A6 – Reply from Ground Water Minster's office to the complainant
dt.11/6/10
Ext.A7 – Letter issued to the complainant by the Opposite party dt.26/4/10
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of March 2011
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 8/11/2010
(C.C.No.137/2010)
K.R.Udayabhanu
S/o.Late P.Ramachandran,
Vadakkeveedu,
Thennilapuram Amsam Desom,
Kavassery – II Village,
Alathur Taluk,
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.Sajan Philip)
V/s
The District Officer,
Ground Water Department
Palakkad. - Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt.PREETHA.G.NAIR, MEMBER
Brief facts of the complaint :
The complainant has filed application for digging a borewell in his property on 11/3/2009 to the opposite party. Also the complainant paid Rs.300/- for surveying his property and fixing the peg mark to get water. Thereafter surveyed the property by the ground water authority and fixed the peg mark on eastern side of the property as per the directions of the complainant. On 20/1/2010 the complainant paid Rs.12,025/- through D.D. to the opposite party for digging the bore well in the place of peg mark. The opposite party dug in the place of pegmark and after 95 feets found water. At the same time the equipment using for digging the bore well was broken and fell in the well. Then the Engineer in the opposite party’s office consulted the Palakkad office and stated to the complainant that well is not useful. There after the opposite party has removed the PVC Pipe in the well. After this incident the opposite party has digging another bore well near the 1st bore well in 5 feets distance. The 2nd bore well was digging without the consent of the complainant and not fixing the peg mark. No water was found after digging the bore well under 175 feets near the 1st borewell in the distance of 10 meter. The complainant stated that the opposite party has digging two borewells without the consent of the complainant and not fixing the peg mark. Now the opposite party has fixed the peg mark in the property of the complainant without paying Rs.300/- Thereafter the opposite party has demanded the complainant to pay the amount for digging the bore well. The complainant has not ready to pay the amount because the opposite party has dug the borewell without the consent of the complainant at two times. The complainant filed a complaint to the opposite party. There was no response. Thereafter the complainant has sent registered notice to officer in State Ground Water Department and Minister of Ground Water Department on 25/5/2010. The office of the Minister of Ground water replied that the complaint was forwarded to the Director of Ground Water Department. Thereafter no reply was given by the opposite party. The acts of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite party to
To dig a new borewell for the amount already deposited by the complainant or
Refund the estimated amount of Rs.12,325/- to the complainant
Cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party filed memo of appearance. No version or affidavit filed by the opposite party. Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 to A7 marked on the side of complainant. Matter was heard.
Issues to be considered are
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the party of opposite party ?
If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant ?
Issue 1 & II
We perused relevant documents on record. In Ext.A1 the complainant paid Rs.12,085/- on 20/1/2010. The complainant stated that the opposite party has dug the borewell in his property and water was found. Thereafter the equipment for digging the borewell broken and fell in the well. Further the opposite party has dug two borewell in the property of the complainant. But two of them were not useful to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant stated that the survey conducted by the opposite party and fixed the peg mark without paying Rs.300/- The complainant stated that the equipment for digging the borewell was broken and fell in the well at the presence of Engineer in the opposite party office. No version or affidavit was filed by the opposite party. Also the complainant sent registered notice to the Minister and Director of Ground Water Department. As per Ext.A6 the office of the Minister of Irrigation Department replied that the complaint was forwarded to the Director. The complainant stated that thereafter no step was taken by the opposite party. In the present case the notice was received by the opposite party and memo of appearance was filed by the Govt.Pleader. But no version or affidavit was filed by the opposite party. As per Ext.A7 that “It may be noted that even though the latest methods of ground water prospecting have a good success date, failure may also occur in some cases”. It is the bounden duty of the opposite party to prove the reason for failure. In the present case the complainant stated that the opposite party has dug two another borewell in his property. But no water was found. The complainant stated that the opposite party has dug the borewell without fixing the peg mark. No evidence was produced by the opposite party. It is a fit case for awarding compensation for deficiency in service. Hence the complaint allowed.
We direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of March 2011.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – DD counter foil of SBI for Rs.12085/- dt/20/1/10
Ext.A2 – Copy Letter issued by opposite party to the complainant dt.24/6/09
Ext.A3 – Copy Letter issued to opposite party by the complainant dt.8/2/10
Ext.A4 series –Copy of letter sent to Minister, Ground Water with postal
acknowledgment card and receipt
Ext.A5 – Postal receipt of letter sent to Director, Ground Water by the
complainant
Ext.A6 – Reply from Ground Water Minster’s office to the complainant
dt.11/6/10
Ext.A7 – Letter issued to the complainant by the Opposite party dt.26/4/10
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil
Cost Allowed
Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.
