consumer forum mansa consumer forum mansa consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/26
Puran Singh
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Gurpal Singh Nirbhey Singh
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Neena Rani Gupta 2. Sh Sarat Chander
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.26/05.02.2009 Decided on : 08.04.2009 Puran Singh S/o Sh.Dan Singh, S/o Sh.Kaku Singh resident of village Kishangarh Seda Singh Wala, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Gurpal Singh alias Pala son of Sh.Gurdev Singh S/o Sh.Labh Singh 2.Nirbhey Singh alias Nikka son of Sh.Naranjan Singh S/o Sh.Bhag Singh residents of Ghular Basti, Near Water Works, village Kishangarh Seda Singh Wala, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.N.K.Sharma, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Opposite Parties exparte. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member Sh. Puran Singh (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against Gurpal Singh and Nirbhey Singh (hereinafter called as opposite parties), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he had engaged the services of the Ops for installation of a tubewell in his land, as such, he is consumer under them. That about 9/10 months ago, the complainant contacted the Ops for installation of a tubewell in his land situated at his village. It was mutually agreed between the parties, that Contd........2 : 2 : the complainant will only pay the amount and the opposite parties would purchase all the materials including tubewell pipes and its installation material etc. As demanded by the opposite parties, for the purpose, the complainant had paid Rs.55,000/- to the opposite parties in two /three installments. Apart from the above amount, the complainant had also supplied them diesel measuring 430 liters. The land where the tubewell was to be installed, wheat crop had been sown by the complainant and due to the installation of the tubewell about one kanal of wheat crop around the tubewell had been destroyed. After installation of the tubewell by the opposite parties, when the complainant ran it on trial basis, it did not pump out water due to the non installation of the tubewell in the proper manner by the Ops, who tried their best to remove the defect, but in vain. The intervention of the Panchayat was also sought by the complainant, as he had spent huge amount. In the gather of Panchayat, opposite parties agreed to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him. On 9.9.2008, the OPs also entered into an agreement with the complainant in the police station where they agreed to pay the above amount in equal share to the complainant. As the opposite parties failed to compensate the complainant, he approach the police station, Bareta on 5.12.2008 and the opposite parties were challaned under Section 107/151 of the CR.P.C on his complaint. The complainant, has thus suffered, mental and physical harassment, due to conduct of the opposite parties and he is entitled, to receive Rs.55000/-, alongwith Rs.16000/- as costs of 430 liters of diesel; Rs.2700/- for opening of compressor; Rs.2500/- on account of damage to his wheat crop and compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment from them. Hence this complaint. The notice of the complaint was given, to the opposite parties, but they failed to put in appearance, inspite of service, as such, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.3.2009. In exparte evidence, the counsel for the complainant tendered Contd........3 : 3 : in evidence Ext.C-1 to C-5 including his affidavit, affidavits of Sh. Kulwant Singh and Sh.Gurcharan Singh, photocopy of application, copy of compromise before he closed his evidence. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the record of the case. As per affidavit of the complainant Ext.C-1, as corroborated by the affidavits of Sh. Kulwant Singh, his co-villager and Sh.Gurcharan Singh, Sarpanch, Ext.C-2 and C-3, he got installed tubewell in his land situated in the revenue limit of village Kishangarh Seda Singh Wala, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa from the opposite parties. The complainant and his witnesses have also submitted that he has paid a sum of Rs.55,000/- to the opposite parties for purchase of material including labour charges. They have also affirmed on solemn affirmation that three drums of 430 litres of diesel worth Rs.16,000/- was delivered to the opposite parties for sinking the bore, but subsequently the same failed to pump out water due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is further proved from the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses that complainant has suffered a loss in the sum of Rs.2500/- on account of damage to his wheat crop; Rs.2700/- for opening of compressor; and compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment. The complainant has also produced on record copy of Panchayatnama Ext.C-5 to the effect that the opposite parties agreed to indemnify him the amount of loss suffered in equal share. He has also produced on record copy of complaint dated 5.12.2008 Ext.C-4 addressed by him to the SHO, Police Station, Bareta for taking action against the opposite parties for not making the payment as agreed before the panchayat. The complainant has not produced on record any proof for purchase of diesel and amount spent by him for opening of the compressor. He has also not examined any expert to prove the loss of wheat crop and Contd........4 : 4 : has not produced any proof of ownership of the land where it was sown and extent thereof. Even in the Panchayatnama Ext.C-5 and complaint Ext.C-4, extent of loss suffered by the complainant has not been mentioned. As such, relief to him cannot be granted mainly on the basis of figures mentioned in his complaint. The complainant has to be compensated for deficiency in service and not for remote loss suffered by him due to any lapse in installation of the tubewell in his land by the opposite parties. However, the evidence adduced on record by the complainant regarding the execution of work assigned to the opposite parties and deficiency on their part, stands proved. In the given circumstances, we are of the view that end of justice will be fully met, if amount of Rs.20,000/-, is paid to the complainant on account of compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 5.2.2009 till date of payment and a sum of Rs.1000/- is awarded to him on account of costs incurred by him for filing of the instant complaint. Resultantly, we accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-, on account of compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 5.2.2009 till date of payment, with further direction to the opposite parties pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-, as costs, incurred by him, for filing of the instant complaint. The liability of both the opposite parties to pay the above said amount will be joint and several. The compliance of the order be made within the period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced 08.04.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
