BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER

       DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BAGALKOT.

COMPLAINT NO.07/2015
 

Date: 16^th day of November, 2016

   P r e  s e n t: 

01) Smt.Sharada.K.                                                    President…

     B.A.LL.B. (Spl) 

02) Smt. Sumangala.C.Hadli.                         Lady   Member…

                            B.A (Music)

03) Shri.Shravanakumar.D.Kadi                               Member…

                        M.Com.LL.B.  (Spl)

                V/s

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SHARADA.K.PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this Complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred in short as OP) seeking direction to OP to rectify and re-fix the casing pipes and lower the submersible pumps or direct to reimburse the amount paid by the complainant with accrued interest, Rs.10,000/- towards damages, Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation and any other relief as the Forum deems fit under the circumstances of the case.

2.    The brief fact of the case are as follows:

The complainant has installed drilling a borewell at his above plot, accordingly the OP has agreed and started the process of drilling Borewell and started the work on 13.12.2013 and drill about 200 feet depth and for that water was gushed out and another 50 feet depth was also drilled for getter more water easily. The complainant has paid in a sum of Rs.95,000/- vide Receipt No.399, dated: 13.12.2013 towards the total depth of borewell was 250 feet drilled, for drilling the fixing the causing pipes. After fixing the casing pipes and lowering of submersible pump was also assigned to OP and for that lowering extra amount has been paid to the OP. The complainant submitted that OP has installed the low quality and substandard pipes where used by the OP. Due to this, the submersible pump was not lowered were bent and damaged and water from the borewell is not being flowing and the water cannot be fetched. Due to this, complainant stated that he has ultimate sufferer as the invested the huge money is dead and wasteful. After this, complainant has visited the OP-Firm and apprised him about non-functioning and the OP had agreed that he will rectify and also assured the complainant that he will do the needful in this regard. Even after complainant has visited several times, but OP has not rectification and re-setting casing pipes in the borewell. The complainant has issued a legal notice to the OP on 10.11.2014 and OP has reply the same and he had denied all the contents mentioned in Para No.3 and 4. Hence, complainant has filed the present Complaint seeking direction to OP to rectify and re-fix the casing pipes and lower the submersible pumps or direct to reimburse the amount paid by the complainant with accrued interest, Rs.10,000/- towards damages, Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation and any other relief as the Forum deems fit under the circumstances of the case.

3.      After receipt of notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed Objection denied the allegations by the complainant, as per his contention that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with the complainant. The OP further stated that standard materials have been used for drilling the borewell and the borewell has functioned properly for 11 months and also the complainant has not produced any documents. There is agreement with regard to guarantee or warrantee. The complainant has not denied the proper functioning of the borewell for past 11 months. So it is clear that the material facts have been suppressed by the complainant. Therefore OP submitted that it is negligent Act of complainant himself and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with cost. 

4.      The complainant tendered affidavit evidence of PW1 and placed following documents which are marked as EX P1 to P5.

The OP tendered his affidavit evidence of RW1. Both the parties is nothing but reiteration of stand taken in their respective pleadings. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the documents of complainant side.

5.      After considering the absent by both parties and on careful consideration of material placed on record, the following points that would arise for our consideration are:

          Our findings on the above point are as under:-

          Point No.1:-         In the Negative

          Point No.2:-         In the Negative

          Point No.3:-         As per the final order for the following;

: R E A S O N S :

          6.      POINT NO.1 AND 2:- As these answer are inter-connected to each other. Hence they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts, evidence documents and arguments.

          7.      On the perusal of the pleadings, evidence coupled with the documents of the complainant. There is no dispute with regard to drilling borewell. As per the pleadings PW-1 has averred and deposed that the complainant has approached the O.P. drilling bore well and the work was started on 13/12/2013. Further the complainant stated that while fixing the casing pipes, low quality and substandard pipes were used by the opponents. PW-1 further alleged that the OP had charged for the borewell to the sum of Rs.95,000/- and was paid by the complainant with vide Receipt No.399 dated 13/12/2013. To substantiate the same, the PW-1 produced the bill receipt and the same is marked as Ex.P-1. On perusal of Ex-B1 it clearly shows that Rs.95,200/- has been charged and for the casing pipes 5 and 7 he has charged Rs.50,000/- and Rs.72,000/-.

          8.      The complainant further alleged that the OP has used low quality and sub standard pipes. Due to this the casing pipes while lowering the pump were bent and damaged. Due to this the submersible pump was not lowered and water from the Bore well is not being flowing and the water cannot be fetched and to substantiate the same.  The complainant has produced the photo copies of the casing pipes while is marked as per Ex.P2.

          9.      On perusal of Ex.P-1 it shows that the complainant has paid Rs.95,200/- for the sake of drilling borewell and it is surprise to see that there is no guarantee or Warrantee with regard to any of the materials used for installation regarding damages or repair. To support the say of the complainant he has produced the photo copies showing that the pump was bent and damaged. Upon perusing of Ex.P-3 the notice was issued to the opponents calling upon him to rectify the mistake in drilling the Borewell.  On perusal of Ex-5 the O.P. has given reply to the notice on 15/11/2015 denying the contents of the legal notice.  The opponent has taken specific contention that for the past 11 months from the bore well and the same is being used by the complainant. The respondents in his reply notice Ex.P-5 has clearly mentioned that there is no guarantee or warrantee with regard to the instruments used in drilling bore well.

          10.    It is further necessity to state that the complainant has to prove his case by producing necessary and relevant documents to prove his case and also he has to come before this Court with clean hands without supporting any material facts. Whereas in this case the complainant has suppressed the material facts that after drilling the bore well it was functioning properly for 11 months. On perusal of Ex-P1 there is no Guarantee or Warrantee with regard to drilling bore well and materials.

          11.    It is further submitted that the respondent has filed his objections and led his evidence. As per his contention, that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade of practice with the complainant.  The O.P. further stated that standard materials have been used for drilling the bore well and the bore well has functioned properly for 11 months and also the complainant has not produced any document, there is no agreement with regard to Guarantee or Warrantee. The complainant has not denied the proper functioning of the bore well for past 11 months. So it is clear that the material facts have been suppressed by the complainant.

          12.    After considering the evidence by both the parties we are of the opinion that the complainant has not established deficiency in service on the part of the opponent. In absence of such evidence we found that the complainant has failed to prove his case and accordingly we are constrained to hold Point No.1 and 2 in the negative.

          13.    POINT NO.3 :- In view of the above discussions and findings. We proceed to pass the following;

: ORDER :

1. The complainant filed by the complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.

    3) Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.  

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 16^th day of November, 2016)