1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that as per guidelines of Deep Bore Well Secha Karyakram under Biju Krusak Vikas Yojana he had deposited Rs.1000/- and Rs.19000/- separately with OP.1 for installation of bore well in his land.  Accordingly after drilling of bore well yield test was conducted and a discharge of 1.80 LPS was found which considered as successful bore well.  It is submitted that after electrification and lowering of motor, the project was handed over to the complainant for operation and maintenance but when the complainant used the bore well, he found that the water is not coming up.  On approach to Ops and in spite of their assurance, they did not take any action.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to redress his grievance and to pay Rs.5.00 lacs towards compensation to him.

2.                     The OP No.1 filed counter which was adopted by the Ops 2 & 3 admitting the deposit of Rs.1000/- and Rs.19000/- by the complainant separately for installation of bore well.  It is contended that after necessary tests, the bore well was drilled on 16.5.2011 and energized on 06.4.2012 and after water trial; it was handed over to the complainant in running condition with discharge of 1.80 LPS.  It is contended that after 4 months of running, the complainant reported low water discharge and accordingly the Ops have taken necessary steps and washed the bore well to get good discharge but it was found low discharge due to non availability of water level in that zone.  It is further contended that as per approach of the complainant, the department again drilled another bore well up to 60 feet casing but it was failed due to sandy soil.  The Ops contended that as per report of starta of the area the land of the complainant as well as others adjoining land, the drilling of bore well is not possible.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed for justice.

3.                     Parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  Heard from the complainant through his A/R and perused the materials on record.

4.                     In this case deposit of Rs.1000/- and Rs.19000/- separately by the complainant with Ops for installation of bore well is an admitted fact.  It is also an admitted fact that the Ops after necessary tests, drilled the bore well with discharge of water measuring 1.80 LPS and the complainant has signed necessary papers as a token of successful drilling.  The case of the complainant is that he used the bore well but found that the water is not coming up and in spite of approach the Ops are not taking any step.

5.                     The Ops in their counter stated that after 4 months of running the bore well, the complainant reported about low discharge of water and hence the Ops washed the bore well to get good discharge but still the discharge was low due to non availability of water level in that zone.

6.                     It is seen from the counter that as per direction of the OPs, the contractor has again drilled another bore well at his own cost up to 60 feet casing but due to sandy soil, the casing pipe could not be properly set up.  The Ops averred that drilling of bore well is not possible for further depth in the area of land of the complainant to get good discharge.  The Ops further stated that this is not the only case of the complainant but there are many other cases as that of the complainant.

7.                     From the above facts it was ascertained that after failure to discharge adequate water, the Ops have washed the bore well but when the said action was failed, the Ops have also tried to drill another bore well without charging anything from the complainant.  Unfortunately, the casing pipe was not properly set up due to sandy soil and thus it was failed.  Finally the Ops come to the conclusion that the drilling of bore well is not possible in that area to get good discharge.  Non-yielding of required water in that area due to its original nature, in our view,  is a providence of God to which everybody should accept.  In the above matter, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as they worked hard for the benefit of the complainant.

8.                     In view of above facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the allegations of the complainant and hence the complaint petition needs dismissal.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs.

(to dict.)