RESU BHAI Vs. SHIVNARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 19. 4. 2005 of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur dismissing appeal against the order dated 21. 7. 2004 of a District Forum whereby complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the respondent agreed to enhance the water discharge of the existing bore-well of the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 4,500. Petitioner alleged that the respondent not only failed to complete that work but also closed the bore-well by putting soil etc. and deprived him from using the bore-well for irrigating the crop and plants. In the complaint, amount of Rs. 4,99,860 was claimed by way of compensation. Respondent alleged that after commencing the work when he lowered the rod and drill in the bore-well it got struck up and was broken. Petitioner later on disclosed to him that he had got the bore- well blasted earlier. If this fact would have been told to him in advance, he may not have agreed to undertake the work. It was alleged that owing to the impact of explosive during blasting the casing pipe bursts inside the bore-well and it cannot be retrieved. District Forum believing the stand taken by respondent dismissed the complaint holding the respondent not to be deficient in service which order in appeal was upheld by the State Commission.

(3.) ALONG with revision petition the petititoner has filed application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC seeking permission to file certificate dated 1. 3. 2006 issued by one Sanjay Kumar Ghatode, alleged to be an expert. Contention advanced by Mr. Kanhaiya Anandani for petitioner is that the plea raised by the respondent that owing to impact of the explosive during blasting the casing pipe burs inside the bore-well and it cannot be retrieved, is false. In our view, petitioner cannot be permitted to file by way of additional affidavit the said certificate at this belated stage. It is not in dispute that the respondent was not informed of the bore-well having been blasted earlier by the petitioner before the work was awarded. Taking note of the fact and also the plea taken in written version to the said effect by the respondent which was believed by both the Fora below, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.