A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is a farmer. The complainant approached the opposite party to drill a bore well in his property. Survey has been conducted by the opposite party to identify the spot. On 13-03-2008 the complainant remitted the drilling charge and the work was started on 15-01-2009. After completion of the work it was noticed that the well of his neighbour Mr. K.G. Madhusoodhan became empty. The opposite party assured that the water level of the nearby well would reach up to the earlier stage within two days. But it did not happen. The complainant made several representations to the opposite party and their higher authorities, no action was taken by them to restore the water level of the nieghbour’s well. The vanishing of the water from the nieghbours well is due to improper survey conducted by the opposite party for spotting water source. Thus the complainant is before us seeing direction against the opposite party to refund Rs. 9,960/- the amount remitted by him to drill the bore well together with compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.
2. Version of the opposite party.
At the instance of the complainant the opposite party after conducting hydro-geological investigation followed by the electrical resistivity surveys, drilled the bore well on 18-01-2009. The complainant has been getting water for agricultural purpose to his entire satisfaction. The said Madusoodhan Nair who is not a party to this complaint has not made any complaint to the opposite party. Based on the complaint of the complainant the Hydro geologist of the opposite party’s office visited the site and found that there is no fault in the construction of the bore well. The declining of water level in the neighbour’s plot may be due to the interaction between the open dug well and bore wells as they are very close to each other. The open well was blasted using high explosives and the new cracks and joints developed due to this blasting may be the reason for the open well-bore well interaction. Moreover if the neighbour had any grievance he could have made a complaint before this Forum. The opposite party requests to dismiss the complaint.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainant. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the opposite party who appeared in person.
4. The points that came up for consideration.
i. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount remitted for the construction of the bore well?
iii. Compensation if any?
5. Point No. i. Admittedly the complainant approached the opposite party to construct the bore well and in furtherance of the contract the opposite party drilled the bore well and completed the work on 18-01-2009. The complainant incurred a sum of Rs. 9,960/- towards construction of the bore well. According to the complainant after construction of the bore well the water level of the open dug well of Mr. K.G. Madhusoodhan Nair a neighbour of the complainant lowered. Admittedly the complainant is satisfied with the performance of the opposite party. The complainant is seeking compensation against the opposite party for the alleged damage sustained by his neighbour. In this case the complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party. It is pertinent to note that what prevented Mr. Madhusoodhan Nair to approach this Forum or the concerned authority to get his grievances redressed which is unfurled. Though he has a grievance this is not the Forum where he has to raise this complaint.
6. view of the above we dismiss the complaint .The first point having been find against the complainant the remaining points do not arise.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of May 2011
