MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Rane, President &
Mr. V.K. Date, Member
BALAJI BOREWELL SERVICE—Appellant
versus
NIVRUTTI SAHEBRAO INGLE—Respondent
Appeal No. 1811 of 2001 in Complaint No. 355 of 2000—Decided on 7.1.2002
Deficiency in Services - Construction of Borewell - The court held that the appellant was deficient in rendering services in respect of the construction of a Borewell for the respondent-original complainant. The appointment of an expert by the Consumer Forum to verify facts alleged was authorized under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was taken exception to the order of the District Forum which held the appellant being deficient in rendering services in respect of the construction of a Borewell for the respondent-original complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was negligent in the execution of the construction work of the borewell based on the report of the expert appointed by the District Forum. The appellant failed to adduce any evidence to dilute the report of the expert.
Issues: The main issue was the deficiency in services in the construction of the borewell and the appointment of the expert by the Consumer Forum.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the report of the expert appointed by the Consumer Forum and the authorization under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the appointment of an expert to verify alleged facts.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed due to lack of merits.
Mr. Justice M.S. Rane, President—We are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of admission itself.
The appellant is the original O.P. in the aforesaid complaint, and its taking exception to the order dated 5th July, 2001 of that Forum whereby the District Forum has held the appellant being deficient in rendering services in respect of the construction of a Borewell for the respondent-original complainant.
2. The complainant has engaged the services of the appellant for construction of the borewell in his field. The said transaction is documented by an agreement thereby set out the total consideration to be paid as also other related terms.
3. The complainant has approached the District Forum with a grievance that the appellant-original O.P. did not execute the work properly and adjustment of the pipes was not properly done and complainant did not get the satisfactory result.
4. Before the District Forum, District Forum itself appointed the Commissioner by engaging an expert of the Government Department who ascertained the position and, accordingly, the expert submitted his report supporting the case and claim of the complainant that the appellant herein was negligent in execution of the construction work of the borewell.
5. The appellant except ascertaining that the report was not properly obtained, did not adduce any evidence to dilute the report of the expert. Apart therefrom the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted to the fact that appointment of the expert was not properly done. As a matter of fact under Section 13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Consumer Forum is authorised and empowered to have its facts alleged verified through an expert.
ORDER
1. No merits. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. Copies to be furnished to the parties.
Appeal dismissed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.