Judgment:
The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondent/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to return the sum of Rs.42,000/- paid for the cost of the work with interest, to pay the incidental charges for removal and erection of motor 3 times a cost of Rs.2250/- which is due to the fault of the opposite party and to pay Rs.500/- towards cost. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.28.12.2007 in C.C.1/2006.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 28.04.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, Written Argument of respondent filed as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2. The complainant/appellant engaged the service of the opposite party, to dug a bore well, to a depth of 578 sq.ft., for which, the cost agreed was Rs.42,000/-, paid in two installments. Accordingly, the opposite party has dug the bore well to a depth of 578 sq.ft. When the complainant had arranged to fix the motor, after10 days, the motor could not go beyond 230 sq.ft. which was reported to the opposite party, who agreed to do flushing, on extra payment. Even after flushing, the motor did not go beyond 230 sq.ft. resulting the complainant unable to irrigate the field, causing mental agony, thus abandoning the bore well also, for which, the opposite party should held responsible. Thus alleging, claiming the return of the bore well charge namely Rs.42,000/- as well incidental charges of Rs.2250/-, a consumer complaint was filed.
3. The opposite party admitting his job, questioning his status, since he is not competent to represent âThirumalai Bore Wellsâ, who did the job in this case, resisted the complaint, contending that as agreed, bore well measuring a depth of 578 sq.ft. was completed, that as per the conditions, if any problem, it should have been reported within a month, failing which, the opposite party cannot be held responsible, that in order to avoid erosion of soil, M.S. Pipe was also erected to the length of 96 ½ feet, that thereafter any soil fell in the bore well, due to nature process, that too, after two months, the opposite party cannot be held responsible and that the complainant being not a consumer, case itself is not maintainable, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The District Forum considering the admitted facts, as well the failure on the part of the complainant, to prove that there was deficiency, dismissed the complaint, as per the order dated 28.12.2007, which is challenged in this appeal.
5. As urged before us, and as seen from the pleadings also, it is an admitted fact that âThirumalai Bore Wellsâ had dug up a bore well for the complainant, for which, a sum of Rs.42,000/- was paid. As agreed, bore well dug up to a depth of 578 sq.ft. not in dispute. The work was completed, probably on 23.11.2004 and as contended in the Written Version, after the completion of the work, bore well was closed, putting cap on the head of the bore, preventing any foreign materials including soil entering into the bore well. No other job was entrusted to the opposite party. It is not the case of the complainant also, that the opposite party had undertaken the maintenance of the bore well, for some period, for which, consideration was paid or something like that. It is also not the case of the complainant, that the opposite party undertaken to erect the submersible motor in the bore well. Therefore, as and when successfully the opposite party had completed the digging of the bore well, his service came to an end and if anything had happened naturally or otherwise, thereafter the opposite party cannot be held responsible.
6. In the receipt also, we find there is a condition âIf there is any complaint in the bore well, it should be informed to us within one monthâ, thereby giving an undertaking also. Admittedly, within the month from the date of completion of the work, the opposite party was not informed about the problem in the bore well including their inability to down the motor below 230 sq.ft. Therefore, as rightly submitted on behalf of the respondent, if the complainant is unable to lower down the motor below 230 sq.ft., the opposite party cannot be held responsible. No case of defective bore well was also alleged. By natural process, there might have been soil erosion, resulting blockage in the bore well, which was attempted to be cleared unsuccessfully. When the opposite party had not accepted the maintenance, even after the bore well beyond the period of one month, then there is no question of any negligent act, on the part of the opposite party in case the complainant is unable to lower down the motor, in the bore well below 230 sq.ft. Nowhere in the complaint, to our best reading, we are able to see, how the opposite party had committed negligent act or deficiency in service except, repeating that the complainants efforts to lower down beyond 230 sq.ft., failed. Assuming so, when it is not shown, the opposite partys act or performance was the cause, we cannot direct the opposite party to repay the amount, which he had collected, legitimately for the work carried out. Thus, for the imaginary sufferings or even suffering is true that should have happened due to soil flexibly, for which, the opposite party cannot be held responsible, since either in the affidavit or in the complaint, it is stated that the mistake had happened due to negligent act of the opposite party, warranting deficiency in service, which is also not proved as correctly recorded by the District Forum, in which finding, we are unable to interfere. Despite the fact, a correct finding was recorded, unnecessarily the complainant has filed this vexatious appeal, which is liable to be dismissed with cost.
7. Appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.2,000/-, confirming the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Krishnagiri, in O.P.1/2006, dated 28.12.2007.