Haryana

Ambala

CC/170/2014

MUNI CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S GURDEV SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

C.L.SHARMA

05 Sep 2017

ORDER

             BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMB

                                                                   Complaint Case No.  : 170 of 2014

        Date of Institution    : 11.07.2014

          Date of Decision    : 05.09.2017

Muni Chand s/o Wazir Chand r/o village Pathreri Tehsil Naraingrh, District Ambala.

……Complainant.

Versus

M/s Gurdev Singh & sons through its Prop. Bittu @ Manjit r/o near BDPO Office, Barara District Ambala.

……Opposite Party.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

BEFORE:       SH.D.N.ARORA,PRESIDENT.

                        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA,MEMBER.

                        SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR,MEMBER.                       

Present:          Sh. C.L.Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. Anil Singla, counsel for the OP.

ORDER

 

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had hired services of OP for boring-sinking of tubewell by executing a contract wherein it has been mentioned that the OP would provide satisfactory service and in case of failure of tubewell within a period of 18 months the OP would be responsible for the same. On 14.04.2013 the OP started sinking the tubewell and completed the work on 01.06.2013 by using sub-standard material. As per agreement, the contract amount was Rs.3 lac and in case of any default in the performance of tubewell the OP was to recoup the loss.  The connection was given on 15.06.2013 and due to non-performance of tubewell the complainant suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.4 lac. The tubewell was to be bored upto the depth of 429 feet but the OP had used sub-standard material in the same. The tubewell failed within a period of one year. The OP inspected the tubewell and suggested to put more Bajri in the same for functioning of the tubewell properly but to no avail.  The complainant not only suffered financial loss but also suffered mental agony and harassment as due to failure of tubewell he could not get the seasonal crops, therefore, he got served a leval notice upon the OP but to no effect. The complainant got the tubewell repaired from another mechanic by spending a sum of Rs.1.5 lac. The act and conduct of the OP clearly amounts to deficiency in service. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavits Annexure CX, Annexure CY, Annexure Z and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C9.

2.                                 On notice, OP appeared and filed its reply wherein it has taken preliminary objections such as locus standi, maintainability, cause of action and non-joinder of necessary parties etc.  It has been submitted that the material used by the OP was of good quality and it was never assured that the OP would be responsible for failure of the tubewell within a period of 18 months. The work of sinking of tubewell was completed on 27.04.2013 upto the satisfaction of the complainant. The work of installing the submersible motor etc. was done by some other person hired by the complainant. After completion of the wok of sinking tubewell, same was operated with the help of a generator which lifted water from the earth and after being fully satisfied he had paid total amount to the OP. The work was done with the help of boring machine and with skilled labour. No warrantee/guarantee of 18 months was given to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP as the work was completed upto the satisfaction of the complainant.  The OP had charged Rs.182000/- for boring work and the rate was fixed as Rs.425/- per feet. The tubewell was working well the complainant was irrigating his fields. Other allegations made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  In evidence the Op has tendered affidavit Annexure RX and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R4.

3.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully.

4.                     It is not disputed that the complainant had hired the services of the OP for the work of sinking of tubewell. It is also not disputed that the work was done by the OP and the depth of the pipe was 429 feet in the earth.

5.                                 The version of the complainant is that as per agreement the OP had to recoup the loss  if the tubewell fails within a period of 18 months after its sinking/boring but the tubewell did not run properly even for a period of one year, therefore, he had suffered financial loss as he could not fetch seasonal crop which he ought to have received if the tubewell had worked properly.

6.                                 On the other hand the defence of the Op is that there was no guarantee/warrantee of 18 months and the work of sinking/boring of tubewll was completed upto the satisfaction of the complainant as the generator had started lifting the water, therefore, the complainant had paid complete amount to the Op. There was no problem in working of the tubewell as the material used in sinking/boring of the tubewell was of good quality.

7.                                 As per the complainant he had hired the services of the OP after executing an agreement/contract and as per the terms and conditions the Op would be responsible if the tubewell fails within 18 months but he has failed to produce the same on the case file to authenticate the version taken by him. In the reply the Op has admitted that the work of boring/sinking of tubewell was done by it but it does not mean that he was deficient in providing service. It is a matter of common knowledge that besides the work of sinking/boring of tubewell many other electric equipment such as submersible motor etc. are required and the Op had specifically mentioned that no warrantee/guarantee of 18 months was ever given to the complainant. The complainant in his affidavit has reiterated the version taken by him in his complaint and Sh.Jai Singh and  Sh.Gurdayal Singh have supported the version of the complainant by tendering their separate affidavits Annexure CY and Annexure CZ but despite that the complainant has not been able to prove his case as in his complaint the complainant has mentioned that he got the defect removed from another mechanic by spending a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs for extracting the water from the earth but he had failed to produce the bill thereof on the case file but the complainant has not brought the said mechanic into the witness box. The Op in reply to legal notice Annexure R1 has specifically mentioned that the tubewell in question is working properly and is lifting water, therefore, it was  for the complainant to get the same mechanically examined through an expert and to produce the said report before this Forum but it has not been done so. It is a settled principle of law that oral assertions without any concrete evidence have no value in the eyes of law, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that the complainant has been failed to lead sufficient evidence to prove that the Op was deficient in providing service. Hence, the present complaint deserves dismissal. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 05.09.2017                                                         Sd/-        

                                                                                            (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                               Sd/-

       (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                        MEMBER       

                                                                                        

                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                    (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                MEMBER