BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 18th day of May, 2009
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.167/2008 Between Complainant : Velayudhan.S, Kollamparambil House, Edavetty P.O, Karikode Kara, Idukki District. (By Adv: Chittoor Rajamannar) And Opposite Party : Tiju Kochuveettil, Proprietor, Jaladhara Borewells & Pumps, Manakkad Junction, Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki District. (By Adv: V.K. Shaji)
O R D E R
SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
The complainant is a retired defence person. The complainant and his family residing in a rented house. The rented house was not having the facility of pipe water. Due to scarcity of the water supply, the complainant purchased a plot in Kappu near Thodupuzha. There was no perennial water facility in that property. So the complainant entered into a contract with the opposite party on 28.03.2008 for drilling a bore well and paid Rs.20,000/- as advance. The opposite party had undertaken the work of drilling on the same day. The bore well was dug at a depth of 220 feet. After two days the complainant paid Rs. 25,000/- as balance amount. The opposite party did not issue any bill. The opposite party had instructed the complainant to watch the bore well. The complainant watched the well daily for water. After few days, the complainant noticed that a block had developed at a depth of 18 feet. The complainant approached the opposite party to remove the block. One of the opposite party's workmen came to clear the block, a weight object tied to a plastic rope, the weight object was snapped from the rope and the same got trapped at a depth of 120 feet in the bore well. It is caused by the negligence of opposite party's workman. Without removing the block, the complainant could not fix a motor pump for drawing water. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed for a direction to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.95,000/-. 2. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it is admitted that he had started the work of drilling the bore well on 28.03.2008. But there was no agreement or guarantee given to the complainant to take water from the bore well. The complainant who paid the total amount of Rs.16,000/- only. The opposite party issued the bill for Rs.16,000/- to the complainant. The amount of Rs.16,000/- was only collected from the complainant. Complainant did not pay Rs.45,000/-. The charge of the drilling work was Rs.55/- per feet, bore batta Rs.300/- and for pipe Rs.180/- per feet. The bore well was dug at a depth of 220 feet, but the water was not obtained. The complainant told the opposite party to stop the work. The opposite party calculated the rate under 220 feet only ie, Rs.16,000/-. No instruction was given to the complainant to watch for water in the bore well. The complainant has not informed the opposite party about the block. The allegation of the complainant that without removing the weight object from the well he could not fix the motor pump for drawing water is not true. The loss sustained by the complainant is a false story. The opposite party had not deputed any workman to remove the block in the bore well. The work was finished in the same day ie, on 28.03.2008 because the bore well was dug at a depth of 220 feet, but the water was not obtained. So the claim of Rs.95,000/- by way of compensation has no basis. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.C1 on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 on the side of the opposite party.
5. The POINT :- It is admitted that the opposite party has started drilling the bore well on 28.03.2008. The bore well was dug at depth of 220 feet, the water was not obtained. The crucial question involved in this case is whether water is obtained in the bore well at present. The bore well was dug at a depth of 220 feet. The complainant examined as PW1, has stated that a workman of the opposite party arrived at the spot and when he tried to remove the block(developed at 18 feet) with a weight tied to a rope, it snapped, fell down, and got trapped at 120 feet. Also stated that there was water in the well, only because of the obstruction caused by the workman of the opposite party that the water could not be drawn. But in cross examination, PW1 admits that at the time of drilling the bore well the complainant also present there. The bore well was dug at a depth of 220 feet there was no water in the well. So the work of drilling stopped and he also admits that there was no guarantee given by the opposite party to obtain water from the bore well. In the complaint, the complainant stated, he paid Rs.20,000/- as advance on 28.03.2008 and after two days he paid Rs.25,000/- as balance, but in the cross examination he stated that Rs.20,000/- paid on 28.03.2008, on the next day he paid Rs.25,000/-. No documents produced by the complainant. The opposite party examined as DW1 would state that, there was no guarantee given to the complainant. In the drilling of the bore well, 80% will be success and 20% will be failure. In this case the drilling of the bore well is failure. Up to 220 feet, there was no water in the well, so the work of drilling stopped and the payment given by the complainant. The complainant informed about the block, but the opposite party and his workman not inspected the work site because they have no technology to remove the block. In cross examination, DW1 admits that the drilling work was done by the opposite party and his workers. He had 13 years of practical experience in drilling the bore well. At the time of drilling the bore well, the water was not obtained, after some days there is no chance to get water from the well.
The Commissioner who inspected the work site and prepared Ext.C1 commission report, in the C1 report, about 105 feet there is water in the tube well and a block at a depth of 120 feet. On the basis of the C1 report, about at the depth of 105 feet there is water in the well, so the complainant can fix a motor pump for drawing water. Therefore, on an assessment of the evidence in this case, we feel that, no deficiency in service has been made out on the part of the opposite party and he is not answerable for any loss sustained by the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18th day of May, 2009. Sd/- SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) APPENDIX
Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - S. Velayudhan On the side of Opposite Parties : DW1 - Tiju Sebastian Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.C1 - Commission Report. On the side of Opposite Parties : nil
|
