By Sri. K. Gheevarghese President:
The complaint filed against the Opposite Party for the defective borewell drilled by the Opposite Party in the premises of the Complainant.
2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Opposite Party is a contractor who drills borewell. The Complainant entrusted the Opposite Party to drill a borewell in the house premises of the Complainant. The Opposite Party was given Rs.30,000/- as the drilling charge and terms agreed by the Opposite Party is that the borewell would provided sufficient water. For drilling of the borewell the Opposite Party has not given any receipts or any voucher. At the time of payment it was informed that Opposite Party is not in the habit of giving receipt or voucher for the acceptance of money. Instead the drilling of borewell was done by the Opposite Party. Immediately after completion of digging of borewell the water in the borewell found to be muddy and unusable. The Opposite Party assured the Complainant at that time that gradually water in the borewell would become clean and clear. The Complainant could not draw water from the borewell. The mud leaked to borewell and the water in the borewell always found to be not useful. The drilling work of the Opposite Party was defective and the Complainants investments for the borewell became worthless. It is also known to the Complainant that the borewell dug by the Opposite Party is not in the proper way and the water in the borewell always be muddy and it would not become clear and clean. The Complainant had the loss of Rs.50,000/- out of the defective work of the Opposite Party.
3. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to gave the Complainant Rs.50,000/- along with cost and compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
4. The Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The allegation of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party drilled borewell in the premises of the Complainant receiving Rs.30,000/- and there was the assurance of the Opposite Party that the borewell drilled would supply sufficient water are absolutely false. The allegation against his Opposite Party is motivated to draw money illegally. This Opposite Party does not know this Complainant and more over the alleged borewell is not drilled by this Opposite Party. If a party entrusts this Opposite Party to drill borewell, the work is undertaken upon quotation and receiving order form and this Opposite Party is in the habit of entering in to an agreement at the time drilling a borewell. How ever the drilling of borewell is usually undertaken by this Opposite Party at the place shown by the Party. This Opposite Party is doing business and the drilling machinery are given for rent to the trust worthy party if satisfy the condition. If a party who undertakes for rent the machinery of this Opposite Party for drilling a borewell and if drilled the tube-well this Opposite Party has no liability upon it. The complaint is not filed for bonafied reason and it is to be dismissed with cost to this Opposite Party.
5. Points in consideration are:-
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in the drilling of the borewell?
Relief and cost.
6. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant and Opposite Party, Exts.C1, B1 and B2 are the documents. The oral testimony of the Complainant and Opposite Party is also considered.
7. The case of the Complainant is that the borewell drilled by the Opposite Party on
receiving Rs.30,000/-. The Complainant is examined as PW1. According to him in the house premises of the Complainant's mother the borewell is drilled by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has not given any documents in respect of the undertaking of the borewell. In the beginning after drilling of the borewell the Complainant could draw water using bucket. The neighour of the Complainant is examined as a witness in this case who deposed that the Complainant could draw water at least for a period of 1 ½ months water could not be drawn from the borewell after a short span of time. The Opposite Party is also examined as OPW1. According to him he did not undertake the work of drilling borewell in the premises of the Complainant. Ext.C1 is the report of the Commissioner who inspected the site and filed the report. The borewell is drilled in the house site of the Complainant in survey No.45/3 in Sulthan Bathery Village. The Commission Expert could not find out any documents showing that the Opposite Party drilled the disputed borewell. On his observation and enquiry to the surrounding persons it is known that the Opposite Party drilled the disputed borewell. At the time of inspection the borewell appeared to him only in the depth of 5.95 meter and 50 centimeter above the ground level.
8. The tube used in this borewell is in the size of 140 milliliter and PVC pipe. The information received by the Expert Commission is that the tube well is drilled to a depth of 185 feets. The remaining portion of the tube well except 5.95 meter is closed by the leaking of mud and stone. The Expert Commissioner's report observes that the tube well was getting filled by mud and stone in the absence of proper fixing of the pipe in rock and improper drilling of the borewell that resulted sliding of the mud and stone in to the tube. The Opposite Party contented that they undertake the work if an order form is filled and given by the connected party who desires to drill a borewell. This reason alone cannot be sufficient enough that the Opposite Party has not drilled the borewell in the premises of the Complainant. The Complainant has no other reason to draw the Opposite Party in to an unnecessary litigation and no evidence is brought in that effect. From the above inferences it is to be considered that the Opposite Party drilled the defective borewell in the premises of the Complainant it is a deficiency in service for which the Complainant is to be compensated with cost.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) to the Complainant along with cost and compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only). This is to be complied by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 29th December 2011.
Date of filing:03.11.2010.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
A P P E N X I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Shameer Complainant.
PW2. Anoop Building Work Maison.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Ganesh Mechanic.
Exhibit for the Complainant:
C1. Commission Report. dt:19.09.2011.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
B1 series. Order Form and Quotation.
(marked with objection).
