BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.       

                                                          Consumer Complaint no.295 of 2016                                                                  

                                                          Date of Institution  :    8.11.2016.

                                                          Date of Decision    :    1.8.2017

Parveen Kumar aged about 33 years son of Shri Dharampal, resident of village Rampura Bishnoian, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

Kala Singh son of Shri Mukhtiar Singh, resident of village Bahia, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                   ...…Opposite party.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SMT. RAJNI GOYAT……………………PRESIDING MEMBER

       SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……MEMBER.     

Present:       Smt. Sadhna Mittal, Advocate for the complainant.

       Opposite party exparte.

                   ORDER

                    The case of complainant in brief, is that complainant is an agriculturist and owns agricultural land in village Rampura Bishnoian, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The complainant to irrigate his fields had to install a bore-well (tubewell) and for this purpose he contacted with the opposite party who is a mason and appointed him to construct a bore in the fields of the complainant. The complainant purchased a new motor and other material including the pipe and filter etc. and spent huge amount. The op constructed a bore in the fields of complainant in the month of September, 2016 and installed the motor and pipes etc. and had received the service charges and other charges from the complainant. At the time of installation of bore-well by the op, Sukhchain son of Sh. Ved Pal and Virender Kumar son of Sh. Gharsi Ram, residents of village Rampura Bishnoian, Tehsil and District Sirsa were present at the spot. That to the surprise of the complainant even after installation of the aforesaid bore-well the pump installed by op did not raise over the water and failed to irrigate the fields of complainant whereas the motor as well as pump and pipes were newly purchased by the complainant and there was no kind of defect therein. It is further averred that the complainant approached the op and brought this fact to his knowledge and requested him to inspect the spot and put the motor in function. The op himself visited the spot and tried to put the same in function but he failed to make any improvement in the same. On further enquiry, it came to the notice that only on account of committing negligence in the work at the time of construction of bore, the motor is not raising over the water. The op himself admitted this fact that on account of improper bore, the said problem occurred. The complainant requested the op to reinstall the aforesaid bore-well without any further charges but the op asked the complainant that he has already taken work anywhere else and promised that after finishing his work there, he would definitely reinstall the bore-well of the complainant without any further charges. That the complainant believed upon the promise of the op and kept on waiting for him for a sufficient time but inspite of passing of such a sufficient time neither the op contacted the complainant nor he installed the borewell of the complainant properly. Because the complainant was left with no other option, therefore, he himself visited the op and requested him to fulfill his promise but the op kept on avoiding the matter on one false pretext or the other and finally about a week ago he has flatly refused to admit the claim of the complainant. It is further averred that on account of such act and conduct of the op, the complainant has not only suffered unnecessary harassment, hardship and mental tension etc. but also suffered financial losses because the main purpose of purchasing the fresh motor and other material has become anfractuous. Further because of the improper installation of the bore-well, the complainant failed to irrigate his fields which resulted into damages to the crops of the complainant which also amounts to huge financial losses to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party through registered post but op failed to appear and therefore, he was proceeded exparte vide

order dated 27.2.2017. Then the application moved on behalf of op on 11.4.2017 for setting aside exparte order dated 27.2.2017 was dismissed vide order dated 12.5.2017 in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. IV (2011) CPJ 35 (SC).

3.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1, affidavit of Sandeep Kumar Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Rakesh Kumar Tubewell mason Ex.CW1/B, affidavit of Surender Kumar son of Sh. Gharsi Ram Ex.CW1/C, copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.CW1/D and copy of khasra girdawari for the year 2016-2017 Ex.CW1/E.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                The complainant has placed on file his affidavit Ex.CW1 wherein he has testified all the facts so set out by him in his complaint. His version of complaint and affidavit has also been corroborated through affidavits of Sandeep Kumar co-villager, Rakesh Kumar tubewell mason and Surender Kumar son of Sh. Gharsi Ram. It has also come in the affidavits of Sandeep Kumar and Surender Kumar that payment of amount of Rs.13,000/- was made in advance to Kala Singh son of Sh. Mukhtiar Singh i.e opposite party by the complainant for work of installation of tubewell. In all the above said affidavits, it has been testified on similar lines that opposite party did not do the work of installation of bore-well properly and the tubewell could not fetch the water even for a single day. The pleadings of the complainant and evidence produced by him remained unrebutted and unchallenged as opposite party after notice failed to appear before this Forum on the date fixed and opted to be proceeded exparte. So it is proved on record by the complainant that the work of installation of bore-well in the fields of the complainant was not done properly by the opposite party as a result of which the motor installed in the tubewell did not raise over water for even a single day and the opposite party failed to redress the grievance of the complainant despite repeated requests of the complainant.

 6.               Thus, the complainant has proved his case and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant. Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to re-install the tubewell in the fields of the complainant free of charge and also direct him to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite party will reimburse an amount of Rs.10,000/- paid by complainant alongwith Rs.5000/- within further 15 days and further in case of failure to do so, the opposite party will be liable to pay simple interest @10% per annum on the total amount of Rs.15,000/-. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.   

Announced in open Forum.                                    Presiding Member,

Dated:1.8.2017.                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                                Member