Complainants filed this complaint against Opposite Parties for seeking various reliefs as per prayer clause:- 1 Complainants case in short is that both complainants husband and wife owned agricultural land about 1.60 H.R. at Mouza Jabbartola within Gondia Taluka. They have decided to carryout the farming of Bananas over the said land. So they decided to dig a borewell for irrigating their filed. The O.P.No. 1instead of boring ownes handed over the contract to O.P.No.2 So O.P.No.2 dig bore well on 6.11.2009 in evening at the above field. The bore was 205 feet deep and the casing was 80’ deep. Complainants paid Rs. 35000/- to O.P.No.2 in presence of O.P.No.1 . But O.P.No.2 had not issued the bill . But O.P.No.1 has issued a letter that complainant has paid Rs.35000/- to O.P.No.2 . Complainant has purchased ancillary thing from Jayshree Trading Company , Gondia on 10..11.2009 which cost about Rs.34,756/-. After purchasing the entire ancillary things the submersible pump was fitted by O.P.No.2 . But the borewell fails to work properly. Complainant’s submit that the workers of O.P.No.2 told that the bore is not successfully done and not only the pipes so fitted were fall down but also the submersible pump so fitted also fell. Then O.P.No.2 assured complainant No.1 that he will dig another bore free of cost but he refuse to reimburse the cost of submersible and other losses sustained by the complainants. But O.P.No.2 failed to dig the bore. So complainant No. 1 lodged the complaint with the Police Department on 2.1.2010. Police gave N.C. Memo and advised the complainants to seek redress from Court. 2 Complainants submit that they have planted 2800 trees of banana and if proper water would had been supplied to the trees the complainant would have earned a huge amount of money. The Taluka Krishi Adhikari assessed the loss of Rs. 2,94,000/- and issued the certificate on dt.18.1.2010 . Complainant prayed that O.Ps. jointly and severally directed to pay sum of Rs. 35000/- paid for bore plus Rs. 34756/- paid for purchase of ancillary things, compensation for loss of crop of Rs. 2,94,000/- as assessed by Krishi Adhikari, Plus Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and to saddle the cost of present complaint on O.Ps. Thus complainant prayed total compensation of Rs.4,13,756/- (Exh.1.). 3 In response to notice under Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 both opposite parties appeared and filed their reply (Exh.7+11) . O.P.No.1 submitted that complainant No. 1 is serving in Police Department . Hence by pressurizing opposite parties by using his office and under pressure obtained one letter from this O.P. to the effect that he paid Rs.35000/- to O.P.No.2 The said letter was not issued by this O.P. with his free consent. The contents of the same were also narrated by complainant No. 1 O.P.No.1 also denied the certificate issued by Taluka Krishi Adhikari for loss suffered by complainant. O.P.No.1 further submitted that due to non availability of the bore machine this O.P. refused to bore and advised him to contact to O.P.No.2 This O.P. submitted the land on which bore was dug belongs to the complainant No. 2 . The complainant No. 1 was joined in the instant complaint with some ulterior motive. Lastly O.P.No.1 prayed to dismiss the instant complaint with compensatory cost. (Exh.7). 4 O.P.No.2 also filed his reply (Exh.11) and O.P.No.2 denied all allegations against him. O.P.No.2 submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. O.P.No.2 specially submitted that the complainant dig the borewell for commercial purpose, hence the present Act is not attracted hence complainant deserve to be rejected with heavy cost. O.P. further submitted that the complainants has not filed the single document about franchise or sub-contractorship between the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 . Further O.P.No.2 submitted that O.P.No.1 has given false document to avoid the responsibility as a contractor and falsely implicated the O.P.No.2 by complainants and also by O.P.No.1 . O.P.No.2 also submitted that complainant had not filed single document of expert’s opinion why the borewell had failed or not working properly. O.P.No.2 specially submitted that O.P.No.2 had no concern and has not dig borewell. Hence the claim of complainant is false, bogus and deserve to rejected with heavy cost. (Exh.11). 5 On verifying all the record and hearing argument of both the sides only point arose for our consideration whether any relief can be granted as prayed in prayer clause and our finding is “as per final order” due to following reasons:- REASONS 6 Both the parties failed to produce any agreement or any money receipt from O.Ps. for digging borewell in fields of complainants. All these transactions are oral. Complainants have submitted only two affidavits of villagers that complainants have paid Rs. 35000/- to O.P.No.2 against digging of bore well in their field before O.P.No.1. Complainants have paid Rs.35000/- to O.P.No.2 on 6.11.2009. O.P.No.2 assured that he will submit bill on next day, but O.P.No.2 has not issued receipt or bill to complainants. 7 O.P.No.1 has submitted that he has given a letter to complainants, under pressure about payment to O.P.No.2 as he is Policeman. Hence both Opposite parties denied their liability on the basis of said letter. 8 Boring was done by Opposite Parties 205 feet in deep. But casing pipe was inserted in borewell up to 80 feet only . The manner of borewell is to dig the bore up to the hard strata. If hard strata is not found, though there is water than bore will fail due to coming of mud, sand etc. So boring up to hard strata is necessary for smooth working of bore well. In present case only 80 feet of casing was used and 125 strata was without any support. Hence this constitutes negligence and deficiency in the services on part of the O.Ps. 9 In this case no ‘expert’ evidence was filed that why this borewell was collapsed and failed. Hence this Forum has given a letter to Deputy Engineer (Mechanical) Zilla Parishad, Gondia. As per the directive of Senior Geologist, Ground Water Survey and Development Agency for submitting his expert opinion as to why the borewell of complainant’s collapsed and failed. Deputy Engineer (Mechanical ) Shri Angad Sawant, who looks after the digging of borewells in Gondia District, has visited the complainant’s spot of borewell on dt. 28.8.2010 at 2.30 P.M. and submitted his expert opinion (Exh.22). 10 Deputy Engineer (Mechanical ) and two Junior Engineer of same department has enquired about failure of borewell. Deputy Engineer (Mechanical) has submitted his report in writing and he himself remained personally present before this Forum on dt. 31.8.2010. He has given his opinion that due to improper way of fitting of casing pipe this borewell was collapsed and failed .The expert engineer in his opinion submitted that up to hard formation steel or PVC pipe was not used and also grouting was not done so this borewell collapsed. 11 O.P.No.1 in his reply submitted that complainant is serving in Police Department, so complainant has obtained one false letter from O.P.No.1 that he paid Rs.35000/- to O.P.No.2 , in presence of O.P.No.1 and there no any evidence that any payment was done by complainant to O.P’s. 12 In this case no any document was filed about agreement, rate of digging the borewell, who will arrange the fitting and pipe and other accessories with submercible pump. We assume that due to collapse of borewell no one want to take responsibility for failour of borewell . And it is not possible to decide this case in summary proceeding without crossing the evidence. Hence we proceed to pass following order. ORDER 1 Complaint is hereby dismissed. 2 Complainant has liberty to approach the Civil Court for any relief if he want.
| | [HONORABLE Smt. Patel] Member[HONORABLE Smt. Potdukhe] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Shri. Ajitkumar Jain] Member | | 
