M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) The complainant/respondent, who is having a bore well, 325 feet depth, installed a submergible motor, for irrigation in the said borewell. Because of the disconnection of wire fitted with the motor, the sub mergible motor fell inside, immerged during the month of August 2003. The complainant coming to know that the opposite party is an expert to take out the motor, engaged his service by paying a sum of Rs.2,000/-, who attempted to take out the motor, failed, not only that caused damage by using explosive substances. Subsequent to the first attempt, though he promised to come and take out the electrical motor, failed, thereby compelling the complainant to incur further expenses, which should be construed as deficiency in service. Thus alleging, claiming a sum of Rs.67,500/-, a consumer complaint came to be filed.
(3.) The opposite party admitting that he used to attend this kind of works, as as well inspecting the premises along with his men 23.08.2003, resisted the complaint, contending that despite he expressed his inability to retrieve the motor, the complainant compelled, taking responsibilities, to attend the work further even using explosive, that this opposite party has not used explosive, which is an offence, that the case is barred by limitation, and that since he has not committed any deficiency in service, not liable to pay any amount much less any compensation, including the amount paid since for that they have rendered service, thereby, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;