P. RAMACHANDRA REDDY vs LAMBADI BANSI

IT is not in dispute that the opposite party dug a bore-well for the complainant. But he charged an amount of Rs. 10,060/-. The payment of this amount is evidenced by Ex. A-l receipt, though it is contended by the opposite party that he issued the inflatory receipt at the instance of the complainant, but since the receipt was signed for a sum of Rs. 10,060/- we are not inclined to accept that contention. IT is the case of the complainant, that after it was dug for a length of 115 ft. and there was also a casing for 60ft., when he wanted to pump out the water by inserting submerigble pump, to his dismay he found that the submerigble pump could not go beyond 20 ft. Thus, according to him, he could not lift the water and thereby he suffered loss of crop for 2 years for a sum of Rs. 8,000/-, the District Forum apart from considering oral evidence and other documents, appointed an Advocate Commissioner, the Commissioner after giving notice to all the concerned, visited the spot and submitted a report. According to the report, there is an obstruction at 20 feet depth and the defect is due to the carelessness of the opposite party. Relying on the said report and also the evidence of PW1 and other documents produced by him, the District Forum directed payment of Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost of the pump, bore-well and for the loss of crop Rs. 8000/- for 2 years duration with interest. IT also directed payment of Rs. 500/- towards mental tension and Rs. 200/- towards expenses.

IN this appeal, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that is, opposite party that the receipt is inflated one and actually the complainant gave only Rs. 460/- for digging the bore we are not inclined to accept the said contention, in view of the fact that the receipt Ex. A-1 has evidenced payment of Rs. 10,060/-. It is next submitted that there is no defect so far as the digging of the bore and casing is concerned, and since the bore was left open without any cover, it is submitted that some stones or mud might have got in, which is purely due to the carelessness of the complainant in not covering. We are not inclined to accept this contention. Even assuming that some mud had fallen or stones in the bore, the Commissioner found that the submerigble pump cannot go beyond 20 feet. Hence we are not inclined to accept the contention that the complainant was negligent, due to which some stones or mud might have fallen in the bore. It is next submitted that the complainant is not entitled for payment of any loss to crop and also for mental agony. So far as, the loss of crop is concerned, the bore was dug sometime in May 1990, if he could not get water, at the most, the complainant must have suffered loss for one year, during one agricultural season, that is, June-July 1990, and that therefore, we are of the view that he is entitled for payment of Rs. 4000/- towards loss of crop and not for the period of 2 years as held by the District Forum. With regard to the payment of Rs. 500/- towards mental agony, we are satisfied that since there is a direction for payment of the cost of bore-well as well as for the loss of crop, no separate compensation can be granted for mental agony. Moreover there is no evidence as to what mental agony the complainant has suffered. IN the circumstances we hold that the complainant is not entitled for a sum of Rs. 500/- towards mental agony. IN the result we set aside the order of the District Forum relating to payment of Rs. 500/- towards mental tension and we reduce compensation for the loss of crop from Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 4000/-, in other respects the orders of the District Forum is confirmed. The appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.