BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 28th day of February 2014
Filed on : 01/02/2013
PRESENT:
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.83/2013
Between
Shaji M.P. : Complainant
Melelth house, Ooramana P.O., (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court
Kayanadu, road, Muvattupuzha)
Muvattupuzha-686730.
Vs
The District Officer, : Opposite party
Ground Water Department, (By Adv. Premson Paul)
Civil Station, Kakkanadu, Addl govt. Pleader and
Kochi-30. Public Procecutor,
Ernakulam)
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant submitted an application before the opposite party on 29-12-2010 along with the prescribed fee for digging a bore well in his property. A delayed survey was conducted by the opposite party on
14-11-2011 after overlooking seniority of the complainant with respect to the application date. Subsequently the complainant remitted Rs. 8,625/- on 16-01-2012 towards the charges for digging the bore well. Since no information received from the opposite party regarding the
drilling work, the complainant approached the Hon’ble chief Minister for redressal of his grievance. After his intervention a team from the opposite party’s office came on 19-01-2013 for digging the bore well. The presence of water visible at 235 feet and the surveyor advised digging of the bore well for further 50 meters so as to obtain sufficient water considering the drought like situation prevailing in the locality. Hence the complainant contacted the opposite party for necessary permission to remit further fee. But he refused to give instruction to the employees for conducting further digging. Due to the indifferent attitude of the opposite party, at present no water is available in the well. Thereby the very purpose of digging the bore well has been defeated. The entire crops in the property including 35 Nos. nut meg trees, several plantain trees and vegetables have been dried and destroyed causing loss to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The sole reason for the loss is the personal animosity of the opposite party towards the complainant for making a complaint before the Hon’ble Chief Minister. The Act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to get the bore well dug further 50 feet deep. He is also entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the mental agony and hardships suffered due to the denial of his request to dig the bore well further 50 meters deep together with costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The version filed by the opposite party is as follows:
The drilling work executed on 19-01-2013 according to the seniority list. Based on the investigation report, the recommended depth to drill the bore well was 75 meters. After the 75 meters of depth the yield of the well was 500 litres of water per hour. Upon the request of the party for further increase in depth, the recommendation from the hydro geologist of this office was sought. He reported that depending on the geology of the area,
the depth can further be increased by 5 meters only. As per the analysis, deepening more will not make any improvement in the quantity of water. Also, further deepening may cause the loss of available water through the dry fracture zones. The deepening can only be done by the recommendation of the hydro geologist as it is very essential for refund, if any, to the party. Refund will be allowed from the Directorate on production of the recommendation report. For further deepening of the bore well as requested by the party, it can be done only with the sanction from the Director, Ground Water Department, Trivandrum. As per the investigation report 75 mts had to be drilled. The amount for 75 mts drilling charges was remitted by the party. If further drilling is necessary the concerned Hydro geologist should recommend for the same. The Hydro geologist recommended only 5 mts in addition to 75 mts. i.e. total 80 mts. But, he has refused to remit the amount for 5 mtr drilling. According to the hydro geologist, only 5 mts need to be drilled additionally, beyond that the risk of dry fractures may be occurred and the water present in the bore well may be drained out. So the District Officer refused to remit further fees for 50 feet as the complainant stated in his complaint. At the time of completion of the well at 75 mts, there was about 500 litres of water per hour. The complainant stated that there is no water in it. The complainant was mistaken that the opposite party has some enemity with him, in view of the complaint given against this office to Chief Minister. From the reply given to the Chief Minister itself shows that the department is doing the work according to strict seniority. So there is nothing to show any enemity with anybody regarding the routine work of this office. The opposite party has not committed any loss to the complainant, as stated by him.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exbts. A1 to A4 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the bore well dug for a
further depth of 50 feet?
ii. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay the compensation and
costs of the proceedings to the complainant?
5. Point Nos. i & ii. It is not in dispute that at the instance of the complainant the opposite party dug a bore well at the premises of the complainant on 19-01-2013 at a depth of 75 meters. According to the complainant, as suggested by the surveyor, he requested the opposite party to grant permission to dig the bore well for a further depth of 50 meters so as to obtain sufficient water to which the opposite party turned a blind eye. The opposite party maintains that though the complainant requested for further deepening of the bore well for 15 meters, the Hydro geologist recommended only 5 meters in addition to 75 meters. It is the case of the opposite party that deepening can only be done by the recommendation of the Hydro geologist as sit is very essential for refund if any to the complainant.
6. During the proceedings in this Forum the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is ready to face the consequences if any due to the further deepening of the bore well for 15 meters and also ready to bear the expenses for the same. The opposite party contended that further deepening of bore well can only be done by the recommendation of Hydro geologist as it is very essential for refund, if any, to the complainant. The apprehension of the opposite party is out of
place especially when the complainant is ready to accept the out come of the further deepening of the bore well and also ready to bear the expenses that too with out any subsidy. In Exbt. A5 the opposite party has stated that they are in possession of a rig which is having capacity to dig a bore well up to the depth of 264 feet.
7. In the above circumstances we are of the firm view that a direction to the opposite party to dig bore well of the complainant for a further depth of 15 meters is enough to abate the agony of the complainant. In that case we feel that no order for compensation and costs of proceedings are called for.
8. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:
i. The opposite party shall take steps to dig the bore well of the complainant for a further depth of 15 meters or up to the maximum capacity of the rig of the opposite party.
ii. the complainant shall remit the expenses well in advance with the opposite party for the further deepening of the bore well without demur as directed by the opposite party.
The above order shall be complied with within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of February 2014.
Sd/-A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of Chelan
A2 : Copy of letter dt. 09-11-2012
A3 : Copy of letter dt. 29-01-2013
A4 : Copy of letter dt. 22-02-2013
Opposite party’s exhibits : Nil
Depositions:
PW1 : M.P.Shaji
