CDRF Wayanad Civil Station,Kalpetta North consumer case(CC) No. 56/2007
Sajan PG
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Propriter,Asian Borel Wells
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. SAJI MATHEW
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
By Sri. K Gheevarghese, President The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint in brief is as follows. The Complainant availed the service of the Opposite Party in drilling a borewell. The Opposite Party is the concern drilling borewell in contract basis. On 11.3.2006 when the Complainant approached the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party gave the quotation. The amount detailed in the quotation were later cut short and it was written in the back side of the visiting card by the Opposite Party and gave it to the Complainant. As per the terms of the contract, the Contd.......2) 2. conditions of drilling borewell in 5 inch PVC Rs.110/-, 7 inch galaxy drilling Rs.105/-, Rock drilling Rs.60/-. Agreed upon the terms and conditions the Opposite Party drilled a borewell in the premises of the Complainant's house and collected Rs.56,875/-in total from the Complainant in different occasions. While drilling work was going on, the terms agreed by the Complainant and Opposite Party was that if any excess amount received by the Opposite Party. It would be paid back and on the other hand if anything is to be given by the Complainant to the Opposite Party it would be settled on completion of work. 2. When the work was completed on verification it was known to the Complainant that the Opposite Party collected contrary to the terms and contract. Rs.155/- collected for drilling 5 inch PVC instead of Rs.110/-. For galaxy drilling of 7 inch Rs.125/- instead of Rs.105/- and the charge for rock drilling collected from the Complainant is Rs.65/- instead of Rs. 60/-. The Complainant demanded the Opposite Party to pay back the excess amount collected . Later a notice was sent to the Opposite Party stating the law quality of pipe used for drilling the borewell and refunding of the excess amount collected. The act of the Opposite Party is an unfair trade practice. The Complainant had a loss of Rs.20,000/-. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to give the Complainant Rs. 20,000/- towards the loss and hardships and Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of this complaint. 3. The Opposite Party filed version. The Opposite Party admitted that drilling of the borewell in the premises of the Complainant. The allegation of the complaint that the quotation which was given at first was later cut short and amount was re-fixed as per which Rs.110/- for 5 inch PVC, Rs.105/- for 7 inch gas drilling and Rs.60/- for rock drilling are incorrect and all those are alleged for the sake of complaint alone. The Complainant had already agreed that the Contd......3) 3 excess amount spent would be met by the Complainant himself and as per the terms the work was undertaken by the Opposite Party. It is admitted by the Opposite Party that Rs.56,875/- was received from the Complainant. The entire work of the borewell was completed with the pipes of good quality. The opposite party also spent Rs.60,503/- in drilling the borewell where as from the Complainant only Rs.56,875/- was received. The Complainant is yet to give Rs.3,628/- to the Opposite Party. When the amount is due was demanded the Complainant evaded from the responsibility opting flimsy grounds. The petition filed is only an experimental basis. There is no deficiency in service for an unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party completed the work on 29.4.2006 and the water was pumped out and shown to the Complainant on completion of the work. The complaint which is based on false allegations is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party. 4. The points in consideration are. 1.Is there any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. ? 2. Relief and cost. 5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and he is examined as PW1. Ext.A1 to A5 are marked to substantiate the allegations of the Complainant. The Opposite Party filed affidavit and examined as OPW1. Ext.B1 to B3 are marked to support the contentions. 6. The allegations in the complaint is that in drilling the borewell, the Opposite Party collected excess amount from the Complainant contrary to the terms agreed upon. According to the Opposite Party the amount received was basing on the quotation Ext.B1. The complaint is ill- motivated. The Opposite Party was given Rs.56,875/- by the Complainant and the balance Contd.....4 4 amount Rs.3,628/- was not yet given to the Opposite Party. 7. Ext.A1 is the quotation dated 11.3.2006, address to Mr. Francis, Sulthan Bathery. Ext.A3 dated 27.4.2006 is the letter addressed to the Complainant as per which the total amount calculated for the work is Rs.56,875/-. The specification in A3 shows that the rate of 7 inch galaxy drilling up to rock formation by slow rig for a depth of 195 feet is Rs.245,375/-. The five inch trubore cm 125 3m threaded borewell special pipe including erection charge is Rs.30,225/- which is at the rate of Rs.155 per feet. 4 ½ inch diametre rock drilling for which the rate is Rs.65 per feet. In total Rs.56,875/- is the amount calculated. The Opposite Party deposed that Ext.A3 is the bill given by him to the complainant. Ext.B3 is to be filled up the Opposite Party. The terms and conditions of drilling the borewell is detailed in Ext.B2. The first clause of the Ext.B2 is that the party has to give Rs.10,000/- in advance. The rate of drilling are also detailed in Ext.B2. But the Opposite Party has not signed in Ext.B2 to make it a bilateral agreement. Ext.A2 is the visiting card of the Opposite Party. The rate of drilling written in the reverse side of the same document is such that galaxy Rs.105/- 5 inch PVC Rs.110/- rock drill Rs.60/-. According to the Opposite Party the writings in the reverse side of the Ext.A2 is not made by him or by his staff. However the Opposite Party has no such a contention that it is fraudulently made by the Complainant. The lawyer notice sent to the Opposite Party for the Complainant is not replied. The imputation in the lawyer notice cannot be treated denied. The demand of the Opposite Party is that Rs.3,628/- the balance amount due from the Complainant is not supported by the documentary evidence. Analyzing the facts of the case on preponderance of probability the Opposite Party collected excess amount in contrary to the terms agreed. The specification on the rate written in the reverse side of the Ext.A2 is to be considered as the revised estimate. But it does not include all the details of the extent of work and the nature of equipments used. The complainant on examination deposed that he has no allegation in the Contd.....5) 5 quality of work. But the documents Ext.B1 to B3 are signed and given to the opposite Party were before starting the work. From the above inferences it is to be considered that the Opposite Party collected excess amount from the Complainant which is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Point No.2:- The Opposite Party admittedly received Rs.56,875/- from the complainant. Towards the due amount of Rs.3,628/- from the Complainant the Opposite Party has not produced any document. The case of the Complainant is that Rs.12,850/- is collected in excess. The amount received is based upon the writing of the rate in the reverse side of Ext.A2. According to the opposite Party the materials used for drilling the borewell is of good quality. The quality of the items used for drilling the borewell is not detailed in the reverse side of Ext.A2. The claim of the Complainant in the entirely cannot be considered. The Opposite Party has to give the Complainant half of the amount claimed. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to give the Complainant Rs.6,425/- (Rupees Six thousand Four hundred and Twenty Five only) along with cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of March 2008. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER-I : Sd/- /True copy/ Sd/- PRESIDENT, CDRF, KALPETTA. 6. APPENDIX: Witness examined for Complainant: PW1 P.G. Sajan Complainant Witness examined for Opposiste party: OPW 1 Murukeshan Borewell Exhibits marked for Complainant: A1 Quatation Dt.11.3.06 A2 Visiting Card A3 Final Bill Dt. 27.4.06 A4 Lawyer notice Dt.10.5. 06 A5 A. D Card. Exhibits marked for Opposite parties: B1 Copy of Order form B2 The terms and conditions of drilling borewell B3 Second page of order form filled by the opposite party.
