RAGHUBIR SARUP Vs. SUPREME TUBEWELL ENGINEERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated, respondent No. 2 was proprietor/ partner of respondent No. 1. The appellant entered into an oral agreement on 15.5.2010 with respondent No. 1 for installation of a tubewell in his agricultural land at village Kauli Majra, Lalru through the mediation of Bakshish Singh and one Vijay Kumar. Respondent No. 1 agreed to dig and instal the tubewell with fibre pipes of ISI mark @ Rs. 362 per feet of digging and installation of pipes and Rs. 182 per feet for digging without pipes. The electrical wire, motor and drivery was to be provided by the appellant. The appellant paid an amount of Rs. 50,000 as advance money to respondent No. 2 in cash in the presence of aforesaid Bakshish Singh and Vijay Kumar. Boring of the tubewell was started by respondent No. 2 on 9.7.2010. A further sum of Rs. 50,000 in cash was paid by the appellant to respondent No. 2. On 13.7.2010 on demand of respondent No. 2, the appellant paid him another sum of Rs. 80,000 in cash for purchase of pipes. The appellant also purchased drivery for Rs. 34,632 for installation of electric motor on 21.7.2010 as per bill Ex. C3, electrical wire for installation of the motor on 22.7.2010 for Rs.26,000 vide bill Ex. C4 and electric motor for Rs.50,500 on 22.7.2010 vide bill Ex. C5 as advised by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 completed work of installation of the tubewell on 25.7.2010. The appellant also paid Rs. 2,500 to respondent No. 2 on account of labour for installation of electric motor.

(2.) HOWEVER , the tubewell started pumping water containing sand particles and small gravel. Respondent No. 2 assured that the tubewell had been installed perfectly well and that water would contain sand particles and gravel (bajri) at the initial stage and that it would start pumping out clear water after 2 or 3 days of use. Another sum of Rs. 19,000 was paid by the appellant to respondent No. 2 in cash on 25.7.2010 but the respondents did not give the bills or guarantee card to the appellant. Even after 15 days of use, the problem of pumping water with sand and small stone particles remained. The appellant complained to the respondents in this regard but they paid no heed to the same. Suddenly on 25.8.2010, the tubewell started pumping very meagre amount of water. The respondents were again approached but there was no response from their side. With the intervention of Bakshish Singh and Vijay Kumar on 8.10.2010, respondent No. 2 agreed to take all the responsibility of the tubewell through writing Ex. C6. It provided that the appellant to pay him the balance amount. Respondent No. 2 also promised to issue bills and guarantee card for installation. The appellant paid him the balance amount of Rs. 45,972.

(3.) IT was further pleaded by the appellant that respondent No. 2 visited the alleged site on 9.10.2010 in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses and declared that the tubewell had developed some serious problem and that another bore well was required to be dug for installation of the tubewell. Respondent No. 2 told the appellant that the gravel used in the bore could not be extracted and re -used for the new bore and that to provide the pit for storage of water required for digging of bore, fresh gravel was required. The appellant purchased the same for Rs. 86,000 and spent a sum of Rs.6,500 as labour expenses for digging the pit vide bill dated 9.10.2010 Ex. C7. On the second occasion, respondent No. 2 used cement pipes for the tubewell despite objection of the appellant. On 12.10.2010, after installation of filter and cement pipes, respondent No. 2 faced problem of unscrewing the rod holding the Kuppa (meant for retaining the pipes in the bore well). He took services of Karam Chand, Proprietor Dhiman Fabrication and Agriculture Works, Handesara Road, Lalru for welding a cross piece of rod at the end of the rod holding Kuppa.