DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 457 of 8.11.2016
Decided on: 12.3.2018
Harjeet Singh aged about 36 years son of late Sh.Bakshish Singh, resident of Ward No.3, Bypass Road, Khanauri Mandi, District Sangrur.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Gurjeet Singh @ Sarpanch son of Visakha Singh, resident of village Lainder-Keema, District Kaithal ( Haryana).
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Santosh Kumar, Adv. counsel for complainant.
Sh.Charanvir Singh,Adv. counsel for Opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Harjeet Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for giving direction for the following reliefs:-
- To do the work as per the satisfaction of the complainant without any deficiency or to pay Rs.1,25,050/- incurred by him;
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment ;
- To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses and also
- To grant any other relief,which this Forum may deem fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that in the month of November, 2015, the complainant availed the services of the OP for installing bore-well (tubewell) in his land situated at village Shergarh, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala. An amount of Rs.70,500/- was agreed to be paid to the OP for the said job, which was inclusive of all labour and incidental charges i.e. cemented pipes, installation machinery etc. It was assured by the OP that the bore-well, to be installed by him would not bring sand alongwith water from the surface and that within a period of two years, if there was any default i.e. if it brings sand alongwith water from the surface, if bore well broke inside , if level of water decrease then he would be responsible for re-doing the job at his own cost and risk. On the assurance given by the OP, the complainant got the job done and paid a sum of Rs.70,500/- to the OP in the presence of Madan Kumar son of Chanan Ram at his shop M/s New Janta Electronic Store, situated at Kaithal Road, Khanauri Mandi, Distric t Sangrur as well as in the presence of Darshan Kumar son of Ram Chander resident of ward No.2, Khanauri, District Sangrur. It is stated that after completion of work, when the complainant tested the water of the bore-well in the presence of the OP, Sandeep Singh, Nambardar son of Satnam Singh R/o village Shergarh, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala and Satwinder Singh son of Kulwinder Singh R/o Khanauri, District Sangrur, it was found that bore-well brought sand alongwith water from the surface. He brought the matter into the notice of the OP who told that operating the bore-well for two-three months it would give clean water. After passing of 2-3 months he approached the OP and apprised him that the bore-well still gives sand alongwith water from the surface. At this the OP got installed the instrument for separating the water and sand but even then the position remained same. The complainant approached and requested the OP for resolving the problem but he refused to do so. It is stated that total sum of Rs.1,25,050/- was spent by the complainant on the installation of the bore-well but the OP failed in providing guaranteed/promised quality of work.The complainant moved an application before the police official, Khanauri Mandi, where the statement of the OP was recorded on 22.9.2016 wherein he admitted the fact he had done the work of installation of bore-well in the premises of the complainant. The said application is still pending. Finding no other alternative, he got served a legal notice dated 26.9.2016 upon the OP who a gave reply to the said legal notice. The complainant also sent reminder of the legal notice in reply to which the OP admitted the work of installation of bore-well but denied his liability.There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the OP, which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
3. On being put to notice, the OP appeared through counsel and filed the written version taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that no cause of action has ever been arisen to the complainant; that the complaint is false, vague, baseless, mischievous , frivolous ; that that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands.On merits, it is admitted that in the month of November,2015 the complainant availed the services of the OP for installation of bore-well in his land situated at village Shergarh, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala. It is stated that the complainant approached the OP and contracted to install a tubewell for 450 feet deep in his fields. The rate was settled $150/- per feet including rent of boring machine, diesel , labour and all expenses and the extra expenses of bore material i.e. (stone pine cost of Rs.100/-per feet).The OP purchased 380 feet store pipe and started the work of bore in the fields of the complainant. Rs.1,05,000/-were incurred in completing the said work.Thereafter the OP asked the complainant for the payment of the balance amount of Rs.83,500/- but he refused to pay the said balance amount. It is stated that the bore installed by the OP is still in working condition and the complainant has cropped two crops (Paddy-wheat). There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CB affidavit of Sh.Madan Kumar, Ex.CC affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Singh alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C18 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
The ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Gurjeet Singh, Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh.Sher Singh, Ex.OPC affidavit of Sh.Kartar Singh, alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP8 ( colly ) and closed the evidence of the OP.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. It may be stated here that on the request of the ld. counsel for the parties, vide order dated 30. 11.2017 Sh.Nitish Arora, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner for inspecting the impugned tubewell. The said local commissioner inspected the said tubewell and has submitted his inspection report alongwith documents, Annexures LC-1 to LC-4. On inspection, the said Local Commissioner found the impugned tubewell in running condition but it was pouring out water alongwith sand. From the said report, it is clear that the very purpose of getting installed the tubewell in question was defeated, which proves that the services provided by the OP were not upto the mark. In the written version, in para no.2 on merits, the OP has stated that the complainant contracted him to install a tubewell upto the depth of 450 feet, in his agricultural land. It was further stated that the water pipes upto 380 feet were inserted. From the said version, it is apparent that the OP had dug the bore well upto the depth of 380 ft. It may be stated here that when at the depth of 380 ft., the tubewell in question was pumping out dirty water , then as per the agreement OP should have dug the borewell upto the depth of 450ft. By not doing so, the OP has committed deficiency in rendering services . No doubt the OP has alleged that the complainant has still to pay the balance amount of Rs.83,400/- to him, but to prove this fact no coget and convincing evidence has been placed on record. Thus, the aforesaid averment of the OP is not acceptable. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that the appropriate directions are required to be given to the OP to provide the clear water by digging the bore well upto the depth of 450 ft. at his own cost. If, still the clear water will not available at 450 ft. the OP shall be at liberty to charge the appropriate amount for the extra digging ,if required after 450 ft.
7 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:
i. To make available the clear water by digging the borewell upto the depth of 450ft, as agreed with the complainant. In case clear water is not available even upto 450 ft. , the OP shall do the needful, on chargeable basis.
ii. To pay Rs.7000/- as compensation which is inclusive of cost of litigation expenses.
The OP is further directed to comply the aforesaid order within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:12.3.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
