S K JAIN vs SUKHVINDER SINGH

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.

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. Before adverting to the submission advanced by petitioner, omitting immaterial portions, the reports dated 1.4.1998 (copy at pages 28) given by the petitioner and that given by Agriculture Department Punjab, Soil Laboratory water testing, Faridkot (copy at page 38) need be reproduced. Former report reads thus: ''Name : Suikhvinder Singh s/o S.Joginder Singh Village Ghudhuwala 1m - 9 metre 9m - 45 metre Sub -marginal Marginal to Sub -marginal 1. Expected cavities may be formed at depth of about 40 metres 45 -67 meter Marginal 2. Tubewell may be installed at depth of 40 metre to give marginal to sub - marginal quality. 67 -99 meter Marginal to saline 99 -154 meter saline Note: No. 1 Quality : Fresh No. 2 : Sub Marginal No. 3 : Marginal No. 4 : Saline, The expected cavity also includes the cavity in saline water. For any clarification one can meet the undersigned personally with prior appointment. Please inform the results after making tubewell. A test bore is recommended before making tubewell". Said later report reads as follows: ''Name: Sukhviner Singh, Fathers Name: Joginder Singh Village Ghuduwala, Tehsil : Faridkot, Block Faridkot, Distt. Faridkot. Lab No. Depth Miliequivalent per liter Balance Micro Degree Remarks Carbonate Bi -Carbonate Chloride Calmeg 1318 125'' Nil 13.2 Nil 5.4 7.8 45.30

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.

FATE of this revision mainly hinges on Test Report of Agriculture Deptt Punjab, Soil Laboratory Water Testing, Faridkot which supports the respondent that the water of tubewell dug was unfit for agriculture use it being saline. In case the petitioner doubted the correctness of the said report, it was open to him to have the water tested from any other laboratory which he did not do. As is apparent from said report the laboratory is being run by the Agriculture Deptt. Punjab and not a private person. In this background, there seems to be no reason to disbelieve the above report. Aforesaid report dated 1.4.1998, as it stands is not based only on probabilities as alleged. Definite opinion is given therein about the quality of water at the depth of 125 ft. from being marginal to sub -marginal which conclusion obviously; inaccurate and amounted to deficiency in service on part of petitioner. To be only noted that the said report dated 1.4.1998 does not show that test bore was must before digging tubewell. Former three limbs of submission referred to above, therefore, deserves to be repelled being without any merit. In our view, plea in regard to two bills being fabricated, further deserves to be discarded as the petitioner did not lead cogent evidence in support thereto before the District Forum. These bills pertain to purchase of materials, etc. It is not the case of petitioner that tubewell was not dug at the site. Respondent must have incurred expenditure for the materials used and towards labour charges for making the tubewell. Decision in Buta Singhs case to which our attention was drawn was rendered on the facts and testing report which is altogether different from the report in this case.

FOR the foregoing discussion, the revision petition is dismissed being without any merit. No order as to cost. Revision Petition dismissed. - ===========================================================================