Present : Sri. C.T. Sabu, President
Smt. Sreeja. S., Member
Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member
24th day of February 2023
CC 342/15 filed on 25/06/15
Complainant : Thankappan, S/o Kuttappan,
Peruvankulangara House, Poochunnyppadam,
Thrissur.
(By Adv. N.G. Madhu, Thrissur)
Opposite Party : Tony M.J., S/o M.K. Jose,
Kerala Bore well and Tube Well Contractor,
Ernakulam Road, Chiyyaram, P.O. Kuriyachira,
Thrissur.
(By Adv. C.K. Kunjiporinchu, Thrissur)
O R D E R
By Sri. C.T. Sabu, President :
Brief Facts of the Case as follows:
Being fascinated by the advertisements of the opposite party the complainant entrusted the opposite party for digging a bore well related with construction of the house of the complainant. At the time of entrustment the opposite party made believe that he is an expert in digging bore well and he will install the motor for the purpose of pumping of water also. Accordingly, the opposite party started the work and approximately at 150 feet, it was informed that there was water. But suggested that for sufficient water it is necessary to dig further 25 feet. The complainant agreed for the same and the opposite party digged the bore well to a depth of 175 feet. The complainant paid Rs.20,000/- for his service.With regard to digging of bore well on 05/03/2015 the opposite party installed a motor for pumping the water and received Rs.24,214/- as price of the motor and fitting charge from the complainant. Thus the opposite party altogether received Rs.44,214/- for his entire service including the price of the motor. The complainant engaged all this only for the purpose of construction of his house. But the complainant was unable to get the water as the motor was not working properly. That was intimated to the opposite party but there was no response from his side. Thereafter the complainant approached experts of bore well and ground water and came to know that at the time of digging the bore well the opposite party did not place the plastic pipes and had not done anything what was necessary at the time of digging the bore well. That is why the pump is not working and unable to get the water. The act of the opposite party istantamount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on his part. The complainant sustained mental agony, hardship and loss, out of the act of the opposite party. Hence this complaint. The complainant claimed Rs.44,214/- for the entire expense sustained by him and Rs.50,000/- for the inconvenience, mental agony and damages caused to him, apart from costs.
2) On receiving complaint proper notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed detailed version. In the version the opposite party admitted the entrustment of work and the receipt of money but denied all other averments of the complainant. The opposite party affirmed that he has done everything to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant is satisfied with the pumping of the water when it was installed. The complainant is not entitled for any cost or compensation as prayed for. Hence the complaint has to be dismissed.
3) When the case came for evidence the complainant filed proof affidavit in which he affirmed and explained all the averments made in the complaint. There are two documents produced from his side marked as Exts. P1 & P2. Ext. P1 is the Warranty Certificate of Motor pump. Ext. P2 is the Bill No.75 dtd. 05/03/15 issued by opposite party. The Commission Report filed by the Expert Commissioner as per the IA 507/15 taken out by the complainant is marked as C1. The opposite party also filed proof affidavit denying the contentions of the complainant to the tune of the version filed by him. There were no documents from his side to be marked.
4) We have meticulously gone through the averments of the complaint as well as the contentions of the opposite party and perused all the documents produced in this case. Examined the proof affidavit filed by both parties. It is an admitted fact that the complainant entrusted the work of digging a bore well with the opposite party. The opposite party admitted the payment also, but disputes with regard to working of the motor and availability of water only. To prove the case of the complainant he filed IA 507/15 to appoint the expert which was allowed. Accordingly the expert inspected the bore well and filed a detailed report. In the conclusion part of Ext. C1 Report, the Expert Commissioner states - “കുഴല് കിണർ നിർമ്മിച്ച് പമ്പ്സെറ്റ് ഘടിപ്പിച്ചാല് ഗുണഭോക്താവിന് വെള്ളം ലഭിച്ചിരിക്കണം. എന്നാല് കുഴല് കിണറില് വെള്ളമില്ലെന്നറിഞ്ഞിട്ടും പമ്പ്സെറ്റ് ഘടിപ്പിച്ച് കരാറുകാരന് ഗുണഭോക്താവിനെ കബളിപ്പിക്കുകയായിരുന്നുവെന്ന് വേണം അനുമാനിക്കുവാന്”. That finding is sufficient to prove the case of the complainant. Even though the opposite party filed objection on Ext. C1 Commission Report, no steps have been taken to rebut the findings of the Commissioner. The opposite party didn’t take any steps to set aside the Expert Commission Report and to examine the Expert Commissioner and even the complainant. Hence it can be presumed that the opposite party is admitting the case of the complainant. Hence we are in the opinion that the complainant is entitled to be indemnified for the loss incurred by him and for compensation for the inconvenience, agony and the damages caused to him.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay the complainant Rs.44,214/- (Rupees Forty four thousand two hundred and fourteen only) towards refund of the expenses incurred by him. Also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards cost and compensation. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receiving a copy of this order. If failed the complainant is entitled for 9% interest p.a. for the entire amount from the date of complaint till realisation. The opposite party has the liberty to take back the motor and the other fittings after payment of the entire amount.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 24th day of February 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
SreejaS. Ram Mohan R C. T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. P1 Warranty Certificate of Motor pump.
Ext. P2 Bill No.75 dtd. 05/03/15 issued by opposite party
Id/- President
