S.K. JAIN vs Devinder Paul Singh

FACTUAL matrix of this case in brief are that Shri Devinder Paul Singh, who is the respondent before us, was the complainant before the District Forum. He hired the services of the petitioner, Shri S.K. Jain of Jain Engineering Consultants for conducting survey of ground water of his fields. On 30th March, 1998, the petitioner conducted the survey and advised the complainant to instal a tubewell upto the depth of 37 metres which will give marginal to sub -marginal quality of water.

ACCORDING to the petitioner, following the instructions of the petitioner, the complainant installed the tubewell at the depth of 37 metres and on getting the quality of water at that depth tested by the Government Laboratory, Office of the Chief Agriculture Officer, found that it was declared as saline''.

IT is the allegation of the complainant that he had paid Rs. 2,000 to the petitioner to conduct a survey of ground water at his fields and believing the report, he installed tubewell in his field at the same depth by spending Rs. 22,000. Therefore, he filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service by the petitioner claiming Rs. 22,000 on account of purchase of material and labour charges for installation of tubewell/bore along with Rs. 2,000 as survey fee and interest @ 2% per month from 1.4.1998 till realization along with compensation of Rs. 10,000, The case was contested by the petitioner who took the stand that he is a qualified person and he gave a report and after conducting a proper test, which indicated the probabilities as to the quality of water. However, he had advised the test bore before making the tubewell. The complainant had not informed him about the sinking of the bore well when he started the work.

THE District Forum held the petitioner deficient in service and directed him to pay Rs. 22,000, along with interest @ 12% per annum. The petitioner was also saddled with the compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. l,000 as cost.

DISSATISFI ED by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The Petitioner argued that the report was given on probabilities and there was no definite recommendation. Further, the complainant did not dig the tubewell at the place suggested by the appellant. The State Commission, after hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant, affirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Hence this Revision Petition.

THE petitioner argued that though he had advised the sinking of the bore well upto 37 metres, the complainant had dug only 37 feet which is almost 1/3rd of the depth recommended by him. He had also recommended test bore before sinking regular bore well. Hence he is not liable to pay for damages.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the revision petition is time barred as the order of the State Commission is dated 19.1.2004 whereas revision petition was filed only in 2005. We have found that certified copy was applied on 29.4.2005 and it was delivered on the same day. Further this matter was admitted by this Commission on 31st May, 2005 and notice was issued to the respondent returnable on 23.9.2005 and stay order was granted. There is no evidence before us that the petitioner has come to know of the order prior to this date.

NOW let us see the details of the survey report conducted by the petitioner which are as under: "TUBEWELL TESTING REPORT The survey report of the test of the ground water done on 30.3.1998 at Village Ghuduwala, Post Office Jand Sahib, Distt. Faridkot is recommended as under: 1. Name : S. Devinder Paul Singh, S/o S. Karnail Singh, Village Ghudhuwala, the quality of water is: Quality Remarks lm - 7 metres Marginal to 1. Expected cavitier may saline be formed at depth of about 37 metre. 7 -37 metres Marginal to 2. Tube well may be sub -marginal installed at a depth of about 37 metres to give 37 -89 metres Marginal to sub -marginal to saline marginal quality. 37 -89 metres Marginal to 3. Possibility of another 120 -154 saline tubewell at 115 metres metres depth but only marginal quality. 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.

A mere perusal of the above report clearly indicates that a test bore is recommended before making tubewell. The report also cautions the complainant that for any clarification, he was free to meet the petitioner after taking an appointment, which he has not done. So the fault lies in the complainant''s action in not seeking clarification from the petitioner and also in not sinking a test bore which would have cost Rs. 200 to Rs. 250, before incurring bigger expenditure for sinking a bore well and using the easing material, etc.

WE do not find that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the revision petitioner. Accordingly, Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the Fora below are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. R.P. allowed.