RAM KISHAN vs Jagdish

THIS appeal has been filed by complainant Ram Kishan against the order dated 4th of May, 1995 passed by the District Forum, Gurgaon, whereupon his complaint for claiming compensation on account of deficiency in service in the installation of hand-pump in his house has been dismissed.

THE appellant had hired the services of the respondent for installing a hand-pump at his house. THE work was started w.e.f. 15th January, 1995 by receiving an amount of Rs. 1700/- in advance. According to the appellant, the hand-pump was not working properly, when the respondent did not set it right, the appellant had to hire the services of another person. THEreafter the hand-pump was taken out from the earlier place and was installed at another place with the help of the second mechanic. Thus, according to the appellant, the respondent failed to render service for installing hand-pump & delivering it into working condition. In the entire process, the appellant suffered loss of Rs. 8000/- by way of harassment, mental agony and shock, for which the respondent was liable. In the written reply filed by Jagdish-opposite party, it was pleaded that in fact the complainant had not paid to the respondent his wages, which were agreed to be paid inspite of complete work done by the respondent. Out of a sum of Rs. 2500/- only Rs. 700/- has been paid to the respondent and even the correctness of the receipt of Rs. 1700/- was denied by the respondent. On the basis of the evidence produced before the District Forum, Gurgaon, learned Forum came to the conclusion that when the installation of the hand-pump did not bring the desired result and the water was not pushed up despite all efforts, the hand-pump had to be installed at another place. This only shows that the water was not available at the particular place at a certain depth but the same was available in close proximity. When the entire digging/boring for installation of the hand-pump had been made by the respondent-Jagdish, learned District Forum came to the conclusion that he was entitled to his full wages. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.

In the appeal before us, the appellant has not pressed any new or additional point except, that it was due to the negligence of the respondent that the appellant had to undergo the entire expense and process twice over. We do not find any merit in the contention. It is a matter of common knowledge that it is only after the digging operations are over, that the water is seen coming up at a certain level. In case, the water is not found at a particular place, fresh digging and boring i.e., installing of the hand-pump have to be undertaken at a different place, but in the entire process no fault can be found with the mechanic or a person, whose services are hired for the installation of the hand-pump. The mechanic in any case is entitled to his wages for the first digging operation and the installation of hand-pump as also for the second time. Therefore, we entirely agree with the findings of the District Forum as no deficiency in service can be attributed to the respondent. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed without costs.