Babulal Jaiswal vs SHARDA ROCK DRILLERS

THIS is an appeal directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) against the order dated 29/7/1999 passed in complaint No. 459/98 directing the O.P./respondents to pay Rs. 5,000.00 jointly or severally with interest @ 18% and a cost of Rs. 500.00 for deficiency in service.

THE contention of the complainant in brief is that the complainant got a tube well sunk in his fields in village Adar in February 1997. THE tube well was dug @ Rs. 50/- per foot for 172 ft. and a bill for Rs. 14,825/- dated 18.2.1997 was issued by respondent 1. THE water yield was got tested through the MP Agro Industries Development Corporation and was reported to be 4" but the water was found muddy. THE respondent No. 2 on being contacted assured that the defect will be rectified in a day or two on return of the Rig machine which was engaged elsewhere. However, since the rectification did not take place he got it examined by a Calics mechanic who informed that the joint of the casing pipe has slipped. To prevent seepage of water from outside a 13-feet deep pit was dug around the bore and was compacted. In July, 1997 the complainant tried to get a submersible pump installed but the mechanic told that the submersible pump could not be lowered to the full depth because of overlapping of the casing pipe resulting in narrowing of diameter of the bore. The complainant has lost his crops in 1997 and prayed for an award of Rs. 14,825/- as the amount paid to the respondents, Rs. 1,952/- as amounts paid to the MP Agro Industries Corporation for yield test, Rs. 3,000/- as expenses and Rs. 50,000/- as damages to the crop.

The appellant has filed affidavit of his own as well as that of Dr. A. Javalkar, Rajesh Sharma, Narottam Verma, Manharan Pande, Lakhan Verma, Ranglal Sahu, and the bill for Rs. 14,825/- issued by the respondent No. 1.

RESPONDENTS in their reply have admitted that they had successfully sunk a tube well in February 1997 for 172 feet and issued a bill for Rs. 14,825/- and it gave a discharge of 4" of water. It is not denied that the complainant approached the respondents for rectification of the bore well nor was it defective. It is also averred that the complainant was satisfied with the work as would appear for the letter issued by Dr. Jayant Jaiswal, the complainant''s grand son. It is also denied that the water of the well is muddy and alleged that any defect to the tube well must have occurred because of the interference by unskilled mechanics. It is common knowledge that a tube well is sunk by a truck mounted rig machine and an outer casing pipe is sunk simultaneously to prevent loose soil or sand from falling into the bore well. The depth of this outer casing depends on the strata of soil. Usual length of this pipe is 20 feet and in case the length of casing pipe required is more, required number of pipes are put one after other. The pipes are pushed into the tube well by pressure generated by the compressor of the rig. After this and finding firm rocks or strata the tube well is sunk to the level its strikes water. After completion a submersible pump connected by pipes and connected electric wires for power supply is lowered into the hole. Through the pipes water is pushed up by the pump.

IT appears from the statements on affidavits by the mechanics that the water was muddy because of the out casing pipe not being fixed properly resulting in failure to prevent outer loose soil from entering in the tube well. The efforts to prevent percolation of outside water by digging a 13 feet deep pit around the tube well appear an attempt to solve the problem. The narrowing of the inner diameter of the bore and obstructing the pump while lowering it beyond 30 feet also confirm that the outer casing was not fixed properly and was damaged. It was argued on by the Counsel for the respondent that the defect arose due to mishandling of the problem by the mechanics invited by the complainant. It is also averred that since the discharge of water was 4" which proves that he had successfully completed the bore. However in our opinion mere digging of the bore does not absolve the respondents of the responsibility of the defects. Naturally such defects cannot be noticed immediately and hence even if a satisfaction letter was obtained it has no bearing on defects developed or detected subsequently. It is also observed that since the motor pump could not be fitted in the bore well the very purpose of it having been defeated and the entire expenditure on labour, casing pipe is rendered useless not to speak of the loss to crops for want of irrigation.

IN view of the above discussion and material placed before us, in our opinion the respondents were deficient in service. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is modified to extent that the respondents M/s. Sharda Rock Drillers and Saifi Bore Wells shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 15,000.00 to Babulal Jaiswal towards the amount spent by him to obtain the tube well sunk. IN addition, they will also be liable to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000.00 as damages caused to the appellant. The above amount shall be paid within 2 months of this order and in default shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum. Appeal No. 04/03 against the impugned order in Complaint No. 459/98 also stands disposed of by this order. Appeal disposed of.