M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
(2.) The complainant/appellant engaged the service of the opposite party, to dug a bore well, to a depth of 578 sq.ft., for which, the cost agreed was Rs.42,000/-, paid in two installments. Accordingly, the opposite party has dug the bore well to a depth of 578 sq.ft. When the complainant had arranged to fix the motor, after10 days, the motor could not go beyond 230 sq.ft. which was reported to the opposite party, who agreed to do flushing, on extra payment. Even after flushing, the motor did not go beyond 230 sq.ft. resulting the complainant unable to irrigate the field, causing mental agony, thus abandoning the bore well also, for which, the opposite party should held responsible. Thus alleging, claiming the return of the bore well charge namely Rs.42,000/- as well incidental charges of Rs.2250/-, a consumer complaint was filed.
(3.) The opposite party admitting his job, questioning his status, since he is not competent to represent Thirumalai Bore Wells, who did the job in this case, resisted the complaint, contending that as agreed, bore well measuring a depth of 578 sq.ft. was completed, that as per the conditions, if any problem, it should have been reported within a month, failing which, the opposite party cannot be held responsible, that in order to avoid erosion of soil, M.S. Pipe was also erected to the length of 96 feet, that thereafter any soil fell in the bore well, due to nature process, that too, after two months, the opposite party cannot be held responsible and that the complainant being not a consumer, case itself is not maintainable, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;