M/s. ROOFER 'N' SHELTERER vs P.V.NARSIMHAM

THE owners of all flats in Sovereign Shelter filed a complaint before the District Forum for a direction to the opposite party to arrange a new borewell of atleast 300 ft. depth in the complex with 7.5. H.P. AC motor, 3 phase supply and connect the delivery pipe to the overhead tank through suitable size M.S. pipes and to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000-00.

THE case of the complainants is that from the existing bore well, they are not getting adequate supply of water to cater to the needs of the residents of nine flats. According to them, under the agreement, the opposite party agreed that water will be supplied by digging borewells. Since the water from the existing borewell is not adequate, they prayed for a direction to the opposite party to dig another bore well. During the pendency of the consumer dispute, an Advocate Commisioner was appointed, who reported that the water from the exisiting bore-well is very much inadequate to cater to the needs of the flat owners. At the instance of the District Forum, the Deputy Director, Regional Office, Ground Water Department, Hyderabad visited the area for the purpose of finding out with regard to the water table and the possibility of getting water by digging another bore-well and if so at what point it should be dug. He submitted a report, which was marked as Ex. A.2. He opined that the exisiting bore-well may deepened to a total depth of 60 metres which may be expected to yield around 100 gallons of water per hour and that if the deepening of the exisiting bore-well is encouraging a 4 inch diameter bore-well to a depth of 60 to 65 metres may be sunk at the site shown in the sketch marked an Ex. A3 near the room of the watchman towards the south western corner, which may yield around 150 gallons of water per hour. The District Forum having regard to the inadequacy of water from the existing bore-well, relying on the report of the Deputy Director, the opposite party is directed to drill another bore-well of 4- inch diameter near the room of the watchman at about the place shown by the Deputy Director of Ground Water Department in his sketch, Ex. A.3 to a depth of 60 to 65 metres, unless after drilling to a depth of 150 feet it does not encounter any water at all and to pay costs.

Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred thus appeal. It is firstly submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the order of the District Forum is not passed on any scientific data. Secondly, there is no point in ordering for digging of another borewell, when there is no water table at all. According to the Counsel, it was wrongly mentioned that the existing bore well was dug to a depth of 130 metres in fact it was dug to 150 metres. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the District Forum may be set aside. With regard to the first contention that the direction of the District Forum is not based on any data, we are not inclined to agree. The District Forum relied on the report of the Deputy Director, who is an expert in that field. He directly submitted his report that if after going to the further depth of existing borewell and if no adequate water is available, he suggested at a particular point near the room of the watchman, a new bore well should be drilled. Since it is the case of the opposite party that already the existing bore was sunk to 150 metres, probably the District Forum felt that there is no point in further deepening the bore. Basing on the report of the expert, the District Forum directed that another borewell is to be dug. The agreement provides for digging of more than one bore well, as it is merely stated that by digging the bore-wells, the water will be supplied. Since the expert suggested that it is only the point, near the room of the watchman where there is likely to be water, the District Forum gave the directions mentioned above. It is also argued that the expert suggested that there is water at the level of 15 to 20 meters. If the adequate supply of water cannot be had after going to a depth of 15 to 20 meters, it would be further necessary to go deep. It all depends upon the availability of water. We, therefore, feel that the District Forum rightly directed that the Opposite party should first drill upto 150 feet depth and if no water is available at that depth to go to a further depth of 55 to 60 metres.

IT is next submitted that the order is arbitrary inasmuch as it directed the digging of bore-well when there is no possibility of getting water at all. With this contention, we are not inclined to agree in view of the report submitted by the technical expert and hence we do not see any force in this contention IT is not the case of frustration of contract also, as the technical person opined that the water may be available, if a bore-well is dug at a point indicated by him. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.