GAGAN GUPTA Vs. VIMAN MUKHARJEE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was complainant before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja Ambikapur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in complaint case No.126/2003. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated 20.01.12 holding that the allegation of deficiency in service against any of the respondents was not found proved.

(2.) THE complaint of the appellant before District Forum in nutshell was that on 30.05.03, services of respondent No.1 were availed by him for borewell digging and Rs.17,275/ - was paid. Then borewell of diameter 4 1/2 inches was digged and pipe of 140 mm diameter with Apollo PVC casing along with socket and cap was fitted in that borewell. Later on the complainant contacted respondent No.2 to 3 for purchase of submersible single phase pump of 1 HP and he paid Rs.14,188/ -. Then, respondent No.2 sent his employees along with the pump for fitting the same in the borewell. But, during fitting the pump it was observed that the borewell was digged in tilt shape and was not in perpendicular shape that is why the pump was fixed somewhere in the middle and could not be fitted properly. Thus, the complainant / appellant could not get any water in spite of expending a lot of money on borewell digging and on purchase of pump. So, alleging deficiency in service against all the respondents filed complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) THE complaint was contested by the respondents. Defence of respondent No.1, before District Forum, was that borewells are always digged in perpendicular shape through machines and so no question arises of digging tilted borewell at the place of perpendicular direction. So, no deficiency in service has been committed by this respondent in digging borewell. Similarly the defence of respondent No.2 was also to the effect that on demand of the complainant he simply sold a submersible pump of Varun Company of 4 inches size. The complainant has failed to pay cost of the pump and that is why it was required to file a Civil Suit against the complainant before a competent Civil Court. It has further been averred that there was no agreement of fitting the pump in the borewell nor anybody was sent by this respondent for fitting the pump in the borewell. Thus, no services of respondent No.2 were availed for the purpose of fitting any pump and so the complaint does not lie against it.