DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.715 of 2017
Date of institution: 08.09.2017 Date of decision : 04.04.2018
Shyam Kumar Singh son of Shri Jai Ram Singh, resident of House No.29, Sai Cyti, Near Village Gholu Majra, Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
…….Complainant
Vs
Makwana Hardware Store Near Village Gholu Majra, Ganesh-2 Society, Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Prop. Situ.
……..Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
OP Ex-parte.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant contacted OP for installing submersible water bore at his residence in Village Gholu Majra, Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) because OP is running shop of hardware near village of complainant. Total cost of submersible bore was disclosed by OP to complainant as Rs.25,000/- including the material required for such submersible bore. That cost was including the cost of wire and labour charges also. OP claimed that submersible bore upto depth of 90 feet will be done and that is why complainant accepted offer of OP by paying Rs.25,000/- through cheque. After getting payment, OP sent the labour to install submersible bore and same was installed on 20.10.2016. After installation of submersible bore, clean and clear water was not emitted therefrom and that is why complainant contacted OP, who assured to send labourers to see the defect. The labourers sent by OP came for observing the defects on 2to 4 occassions. Complainant was shocked to know that submersible bore was only having depth of 60 feet instead of 90 feet. When OP was disclosed about that, then he assured to send the laburers for installing submersible bore upto 90 feet depth, but despite that installation of submersible bore upto 90 feet depth has not been done resulting in mental harassment and agony of complainant. Complainant claims to have suffered a lot because of consumption of dirty water emitted by said installed bore. Complainant made many requests to the Municipal Councilor of his ward for having solution of the problem, but said Municipal Councilor did not gave any sufficient reply and nor took any action. Thereafter, complaint was lodged with Police Post at Lehli, but no action taken even by police. OP had been putting of the matter on one pretext or the other, despite approach to him many times by complainant.
2. OP is exparte in this case.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex.CW-1/1 and Ex.CW-1/2 alongwith document Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and thereafter closed evidence.
4. Oral arguments of complainant heard and records gone through.
5. Though affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 is there in support of the assertions made in the complaint, but affidavit Ex.CW-1/2 of Shyam Kumar Singh does not support the assertions of complainant as to in presence of which of the witnesses the depth of the bore was measured for finding the same as 60 feet. Names of the witnesses are not at all mentioned in Ex.CW-1/2 at all. Contents of affidavit Ex.CW-1/2 shows as if OP installed bore of 60 feet by charging price of installation of bore of 90 feet from him. This assertion contained in Para-2 of affidavit Ex.CW-1/2 shows as if the amount for installation of bore in question charged from complainant. Payment of Rs.25,000/- by complainant to OP proved by copy of statement of account Ex.C-1. Even if this amount has been paid and the bore installed, despite that complainant unable to name the lbarourer or witnesses in whose presence the bore installed or as to in whose presence the depth of the bore measured for finding the same as 60 feet instead of 90 feet. So much so, name of the Municipal Councilor with whom matter taken by complainant, not disclosed in the complaint or in any of the submitted affidavits or in any other material. In view of these vague and general assertions of complainant, it cannot be believed that actual installed bore was having depth of 60 feet and not 90 feet. Some expert must have been examined by complainant to establish that he measured the depth of the installed bore for finding the same as 60 feet, but no such expert examined by complainant and nor the persons who installed the bore named at all by complainant and as such on vague and general assertions, case of complainant cannot be believed. Present is a case in which report of some technical expert is required for establishing as to how much actual is depth of the installed bore. Even report required as to whether really the water emitted from the bore in question is unfit for human consumption. Complainant has not obtained report from any laboratory and nor sought for such report of any laboratory and as such virtually complainant wants to get relief without proof of deficiency in service provided to him by OP. Even no report of expert brought on record to establish that on installation of bore upto depth of 90 feet in the area concerned, clean and clear water will come out therefrom. So the complainant unable to establish that virtually due to less depth of the installed bore, clear and clean water was not emitted by the bore.
6. In case titled as Harbhajan Singh vs. Jhandu Kay Coop. Agriculture Service Society Ltd. & others, 2015(4) CLT 72 (NC) it has been held that onus of proving that seeds were of inferior quality was on petitioner, but in case he failed to do so, then complaint liable to be dismissed, more so when report of Agriculture Department not obtained. Same is the position in the case before us because here no report of expert or of technical hand produced or sought for for proving that depth of the installed bore was less than that of the contracted one or that the bore installed was emitting non clear and unclean water. As complainant has failed to discharge the burden of proving the facts of the complaint and as such complaint deserves dismissal.
7. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
April 04, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
