DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 14th day of December, 2023.
Filed on: 03/01/2023
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C No. 3/2023
COMPLAINANT
Sibu P.R., S/o. Ramankutty, Poonjattu House, House No. 228A, Thazhuvamkunnu P.O., Kalloorkkad, Moovattupuzha 686668
(Rep. by Adv. Mishal M. Dasan, Karippaparambil Associates, HB 48, Panampilly Nagar, Cochin 682036)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
Assian Borewell & Pumb, Kerala State Ground Water Authority approved, MC Road, Perumbavoor, Vattakattupadi 683542.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President:
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that in May 2022, the complainant had a borewell drilled on their property by a contractor, costing Rs. 46,450. They installed a PVC pipe at 24 feet and found water the next day. However, when they started using a motor in June, mud contaminated it, requiring cleaning three times. Eventually, the motor got stuck at 270 feet. The contractor charged Rs. 7,500 to retrieve it in October 2022, but didn't provide a bill. The next day, they charged Rs. 22,000 for cleaning the well, but it was discovered that the contractor had used a broken pipe, causing mud leakage. The contractor refused to replace or repair the pipe. The property owner then filed a complaint at the Kallurkkad police station. Despite several calls from the police, the contractor did not appear at the station and only visited the complainant's house once, refusing to fix the issue.
The complainant, who incurred expenses of approximately Rs. 48,000 for a motor and an additional Rs. 6,000 for its fitting and cleaning, seeks compensation from the opposite party. They request a total of Rs. 1,29,463 as reimbursement for their financial losses. Additionally, the complainant is asking for Rs. 1,50,000/- for the emotional distress experienced by them and their family due to the opposite party's actions, as well as for the inconvenience caused by the lack of an alternative water source.
2) Notice
The commission sent a notice to the opposite party. The notice was returned as 'unclaimed,' as per the endorsement of the Postal Department. The service of the notice shall be treated as deemed service. Therefore, they have been set as ex-parte.
3). Evidence
The complainant had filed an ex-parte proof affidavit and 4 documents that was marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A 4.
Exhibit-A-1: A copy of the Cash bill for Bore Drilling,
Exhibit A2: A copy of the Bill for Bore cleaning,
Exhibit A3: A copy of the Bill for Motor Purchase,
Exhibit A4: A copy of the Acknowledgement Receipt of Petition.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. A copy of the Cash bill for Bore Drilling issued by the opposite party. The receipt evidencing payment to the opposite party (Exhibits A-1). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, submitted that the complainant in this case had a borewell drilled on their property by a contractor at a cost of Rs. 46,450. Initially, they found water at 24 feet and installed a PVC pipe. However, when they started using a motor in June, it became contaminated with mud and had to be cleaned three times. Eventually, the motor got stuck at 270 feet, and the contractor charged Rs. 7,500 to retrieve it in October 2022 but didn't provide a bill. The next day, the contractor charged Rs. 22,000 for cleaning the well, but it was discovered that a broken pipe had been used, causing mud leakage. The contractor refused to replace or repair the pipe. As a result, the property owner filed a complaint at the Kallurkkad police station.
The complainant incurred expenses of approximately Rs. 48,000 for the motor and an additional Rs. 6,000 for its fitting and cleaning. They are seeking compensation from the opposite party totalling Rs. 1,29,463 to cover their financial losses. Additionally, the complainant is asking for Rs. 1,50,000 for the emotional distress experienced by them and their family due to the opposite party's actions, as well as for the inconvenience caused by the lack of an alternative water source.
The evidence presented included an ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant, and it was unchallenged by the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence. Therefore, the complainant requests the commission to grant the relief sought, including compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practices.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite party. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
Issue 2: Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice
The complainant alleged that the opposite party engaged in deficient services and unfair trade practices. The evidence provided, including the cash bill for bore drilling (Exhibit A-1) and the bill for motor purchase (Exhibit A-3), supports the complainant's claims. Moreover, the opposite party's failure to respond to the complaint and their unchallenged contentions further bolster the complainant's case.
Issue 3: Entitlement to Relief
Considering the evidence presented, the complainant's unchallenged contentions, and the serious deficiency in service caused by the opposite party, it is evident that the opposite party engaged in unfair trade practices and provided deficient services. Their actions resulted in financial losses for the complainant and caused emotional distress and inconvenience. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to relief.
In conclusion, the complaint is deemed maintainable, and the opposite party is found to have engaged in unfair trade practices and deficient services.
We find that issues (I) to (IV) are in favour of the complainant due to the substantial deficiency in service and unfair trade practices exhibited by the opposite party. Consequently, the complainant has experienced significant inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a direct result of the negligence of the opposite party.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party are liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Party shall refund of Rs.93,963/- (Rupees ninety three thousand nine hundred sixty three only) to the complainant as per (Exhibit A-1 and A3).
- The Opposite Party shall pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only ) towards compensation the emotional distress experienced by the complainant and their family, as well as the inconvenience caused by the lack of an alternative water source.
- The Opposite Party shall also pay the complainant Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The Opposite Party is hereby held liable for the aforementioned directions, which must be complied with within 30 days from the date of receiving a copy of this order. Failure to do so will result in the amounts specified in (i) and (ii) above incurring interest at a rate of 9% from the date of filing the complaint (03.01.2023) until the date of full payment.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on the 14th day of December, 2023
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s evidence
Exhibit-A-1: A copy of the Cash bill for Bore Drilling,
Exhibit A2: A copy of the Bill for Bore cleaning,
Exhibit A3: A copy of the Bill for Motor Purchase,
Exhibit A4: A copy of the Acknowledgement Receipt of Petition.
Opposite party’s evidence
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 3/2023
Order Date: 14/12/2023
