By Sri. A.S. Subhagan,  Member:

          This is a complaint filed under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          2. Facts of the complaint in brief:-  The Complainant is an agriculturist and for  the purpose  of usage of water in his newly  constructing  house,  through the  1^st  Opposite party who is an Agent made the  Complainant believe that the  2^nd  Opposite Party is a responsible person who shall  dig a tube-well, entrusted the work of digging  the tube-well to the  2^nd  Opposite Party.  On  17.06.2019  the work was started and completed  the construction of the  tube-well on 18.06.2019  by  the  2^nd  Opposite Party.  On  completion of the work,  the Opposite Parties  told the Complainant that sufficient fresh water without interruption should be obtained from the tube-well within  two days.  In addition,  the Opposite parties had told  the Complainant that the 1^st  Opposite Party had  the license    to dig tube-well which should  be obtained from the department.  But  as mixed and muddy water was flowing  from the   tube-well at the time of  digging  the well,  the Opposite parties told the Complainant that it was because of the rock powder and compressor oil,  narrating that in  the first few days muddy water would be there and also told that  fresh water  can be pumped  for 24  hours.

          3. Ordinarily the total  expenditure for digging  a 500 ft deep  tube-well should be only Rs. 1,00,000/-.  But the Opposite Party for digging   a 185  feet deep tube-well demanded Rs.1,90,000/-.  The Complainant paid  Rs. 1,50,000/-  to the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Parties told that no defect shall be there to the tube-well and tried to get the full payment from the Complainant.  But  as the Complainant had not cash in hand at that time, could not pay the balance.  The Opposite Parties had assured  that no problems should be there and if any problem raised  they  should be responsible for that.

          4. Consequently in the  first   week of July 2019  the Complainant could get water  only for the first five minutes and   subsequently got only mixed and muddy water.  On telling this  fact to the Opposite Parties they had  offered to rectify it.  But they did not do it,  inspite of repeated requests.  Afterwards,  the Opposite Parties told the Complainant that they were not responsible and they could not  rectify it.  Subsequently the Complainant made a complaint to the  Panamaram Police.  Due to the influence  of the Opposite Parties, the Police did not take any interest and the Complainant was  forced to sign an agreement prepared and brought by the Opposite parties in which the  1^st  Opposite Party is a witness.

          5. Afterwards on 10.01.2020,  the Opposite parties in the guise  of repairing  and rectifying  the tube-well,  fitted some utensils  and flushed the water telling that everything have been corrected.  Then as per the direction of the Opposite parties,  the Complainant fitted the motor in maximum depth and started pumping  water from the tube-well.  But on pumping, only muddy water was out-flowed from the tube-well.  On contacting the Opposite parties,  they explained that their duty is  only digging the well and the success or failure of it should not affect them and they  should not be responsible for that.  The tube-well was dug  by the Complainant only on the basis of the full assurance of the Opposite parties,  spending huge  amount  of money.

          6. The total depth of the tube-well dug  by the Opposite Parties is only 185 feet.  If the tube-well had  any defect as to land sliding or mudding the Opposite parties should have been aware of it.  If there  had any such problems there was no need to drive out the  pipes.  If  9 inch and 6 inch pipes had not been driven out there should  have been a total  expenditure of   only Rs.25,000/-  for digging  the tube-well.  Instead the Opposite Parties charged  Rs.1,90,000/-  of which  Rs.1,50,000/-  have been paid to the Opposite Parties.  Due to these acts of the Opposite Parties the Complainant had to face mental sufferings and other loss and injury.  So there has been deficiency  in service  from the part of the Opposite parties for which the Complainant has approached the Commission with the following prayers filing this complaint.

1.  To direct the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.1,50,000/-  being the amount paid by the Complainant,  to the Opposite Parties, together with interest @ Rs.12% per annum and
2. To direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and
3. To direct the Opposite Parties to pay cost of this complaint.

7. Commission registered  the complaint and notices were served on both the

Opposite Parties but  1^st  Opposite Party did not appear before the Commission and hence  1^st  Opposite Party was set  ex-parte.  Vakalath for  2^nd  Opposite Party was filed  but  2^nd  Opposite Party not represented  and filed version.  Hence  2^nd Opposite Party was also  set ex-parte.  Affidavit was filed  by the Complainant,  examined him as PW1 and he was finally heard on 02.08.2022.

          8. Commission examined the complaint,  affidavit and the sworn deposition  of the  Complainant.  The allegation  of the Complainant is that he had engaged the Opposite parties for digging a tube-well in his newly constructing building.  But fresh water did not get from the tube-well for the use of the Complainant,  as mixed  and muddy water flowed from it.  Though the Opposite Parties had offered to rectify it they did not do that  and therefore the Complainant had to face mental sufferings and other loss and injury.  Moreover the Opposite Parties charged exorbitant amount as consideration.  This is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties for which the complainant seeks refund of Rs.1,50,000/-  with 12% interest  from the  Opposite Parties and a compensation of Rs.25,000/-  and  cost of the complaint.  The Opposite Parties had the opportunity and they were at liberty to appear before the Commission.  But they did not do that. Therefore,  the Commission has no other option than to believe the allegations of the Complainant.  Undertaking to construct a tube-well and not rectifying its defects so as  to get it useful to the satisfaction of the Complainant and charging and demanding of  exorbitant amount as consideration is deficiency in service.  So there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties for which they are liable to refund the amount they received from the complainant with interest,  pay compensation and cost of the complaint to the Complainant.

          In the result,  the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties are ordered

1.  To  refund Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty thousand only) being the amount they received from the  Complainant together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of this complaint.
2. To pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) as compensation to the Complainant and
3. To pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of this complaint.

The above amount shall be paid to the  Complainant within one month from

the  date of this order jointly and severally by the  1^st and 2^nd  Opposite parties failing which the amount will carry  interest @ 8% per annum from the date of this order.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 6^th day of  August 2022.

          Date of filing:22.01.2020.

                                                                   PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                   MEMBER    :  Sd/-

                                                                   MEMBER    :  Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1.           Abdul Salam  D. M                  Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

Nil.                                

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

Nil.