KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 455/2015

JUDGMENT DATED: 09.11.2018

(Against the order in C.C. 124/2011 of CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta)

PRESENT : 

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                             : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

The District Officer, Ground Water Department, Meenangadi Post, Wayanad.

(By M. Nizarudeen, Addl. Govt. Pleader)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

O.S. Abdul Nazer, Odakutty House, Krishnagiri Post, Sulthan Bathery Taluk, Wayanad.

                             (By Adv. P. Raj Mohan)

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER

1^st opposite party in C.C. No. 124/2011 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad has filed the appeal challenging the Order of the forum directing to pay Rs. 6,900/- being 75% of the total amount remitted by the complainant to 1^st opposite party and 1^st opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

2.  The case as stated by the respondent/complainant before the lower forum was that the complainant submitted an application to the appellant for the purpose of digging a tube well within the premises owned by the complainant.  Accordingly the appellant sent a letter dated 25.04.2011 to the complainant stating that on conducting survey with the aid of scientific equipments they would find a tube well having 70 meters depth and an estimate also enclosed along with the said letter for a sum of Rs. 8,050/- and directed the complainant to pay the said sum in the district treasury.  Further directed to execute contract in Rs. 100/- stamp paper and to collect the materials.  But the opposite party did not adopt scientific instruments to find out the exact place to dig the tube well.  Complainant remitted Rs. 8,050/- on 16.05.2011 as directed and collected all equipments.  The 1^st opposite party did not select the place which a carpenter had pointed out.  1^st opposite party started digging and even after completing 70 meters no water was found.  Again complainant remitted Rs. 1,150/- as further cost to dig 10 m depth.  Even after completing 10 m water could not be found and ultimately the appellant stopped work.  1^st opposite party did not contact the complainant again even though there was an assurance to dig another tube well.  It is a clear latches on the part of 1^st opposite party.  Aggrieved by this the complaint is filed. 

3.  Notice was issued to the appellant/opposite parties and opposite parties appeared and filed version.  In the version opposite parties admitted the contract with the complainant.  In the recommendation letter it was clearly mentioned that even though scientific methods are adopted for investigation, chances of failure is there and an indirect method cannot yield exact results.  Opposite parties admitted the remittance of Rs. 8,050/- on availing subsidy benefit.  The opposite parties contended that they have adopted scientific methods for ground water investigation before digging by Hydro Geologist.  As per the Government Order issued in this regard if the bore well drilled by the department is a failure, 75% of the amount remitted for bore well construction is refunded under failed well compensation scheme.  It is also stated in the version that if the construction is under subsidy scheme the party get refund of only 50% of the remitted amount.  As such, complainant is eligible for 50% of the amount remitted by him.  The evidence consists of oral testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked on the part of the complainant and OPW1 is examined on the part of the opposite parties and Exts. B1 to B11 were marked on the side of opposite parties.  Commission report is marked as Ext. C1.  Appellant alleges that the lower forum without considering the merits of the case and perusing the documents produced on behalf of the appellant/opposite parties passed an order partly allowing the complaint and directed the appellant/1^st opposite party to pay Rs. 6,900/- being 75% of the total amount remitted by the complainant to 1^st opposite party and 1^st opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. The appellant is also directed to pay 12% interest for Rs. 6,900/- from the date of filing the complaint till realization.  Aggrieved by the above order the appellant has preferred this appeal.  

4.  We heard the counsel for both sides and perused the records.  We notice that in Ext. B10 document produced by the opposite party it is clearly stated that “In future 75% of the advance collected will be refunded to the party if the bore well constructed by the department happen to be totally dry”.  Both the parties admitted that digging of the tube well was a failure.  Opposite party also admitted that there were scientific equipments with the department to find out water source.  At the time of cross examination opposite party stated that no scientific equipment used to find out the water source in the premises of the complainant.  We confirm the findings of the forum that there was clear deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party in dealing with the matter and the complainant is entitled to get 75% of the amount remitted for bore well construction under failed well compensation scheme.  Based on the above discussion we do not find any illegality in the Order of the district forum allowing the complaint.  Hence appeal is dismissed without cost.  

T.S.P. MOOSATH    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                     BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER