S K JAIN Vs. SUKHVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 19.1.2004 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order dated 27.6.2000 of a District Forum whereby petitioner/opposite party was directed to pay amount of Rs. 22,000 with interest, Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment as also cost to the respondent/complainant.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this revision, in brief, are these. Petitioner is the proprietor of Jain Engineering Consultants, Sirsa. Respondent hired the services of petitioner for consideration for making survey of ground water in his fields. On 30.3.1998, petitioner conducted the survey of fields and gave report dated 1.4.1998 stating that at the depth of 40 mtrs. marginal to sub -marginal quality of water is available. Acting on this report the respondent installed tubewell at the depth of 125 ft. On getting the quality of water tested from a Government Laboratory, the respondent learnt that water was saline. Respondent alleged that he had spent Rs. 22,000 in installing tubewell. It was alleged that as the quality of water at the said depth was not according to said report, it amounted to deficiency in service on part of petitioner. So, complaint was filed seeking recovery of Rs. 22,000, Rs. 2,000 paid by way of fee, Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment Petitioner contested the complaint by filing written version. It was alleged that survey of respondents fields was got conducted by the petitioner by a qualified person with proper machines. Report was given only on probabilities as to the quality of water. Petitioner did not give any definite opinion in regard to quality of water. It was further alleged that test bore as recommended was not got done by the respondent. Sample of water for testing was not lifted in the presence of petitioner. Test report is not reliable. Bills of material, etc. produced are fabricated.

(3.) UNIT for agriculture use 4. Submission advanced by the petitioner was that test bore was not done before making tubewell; report dated 1.4.98 was given only on probabilities as to the quality of water and it did not contain definite/accurate opinion; test report of Agriculture Department Punjab, Soil Laboratory water testing, Faridkot is unreliable; two bills (copy at pages 36 -37) are fabricated having been issued by non -existing persons. It was pointed out that the order passed by a District Forum in a complaint filed by Buta Singh on some what similar facts was set -aside by the State Commission and revision against State Commissions order filed by Buta Singh was dismissed by the Commission vide order dated 19.10.2005.