ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 24.03.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.95/2014 title Krishan Dev v. Chauhan Bore Well. Brief facts of Consumer Complaint: 2. Complainant Krishan Dev filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite party pleaded therein that in the month of July 2014 complainant decided to dig a bore well and went to opposite party. It is pleaded that it was settled between the parties that in case plastic pipes are used then rate would be Rs. 300/- (Three hundred) per feet and in case GI/steel pipes are used then rate would be Rs. 650/- (Six hundred fifty) per feet. It is further pleaded that Joginder Singh husband of opposite party who used to manage and organize business of opposite party came at the spot with machinery and dug bore well upto 300 feet. It is further pleaded that on the advice of husband of opposite party bore well was dug upto 390 feet. It is further pleaded that after completion of work muddy water came out from the well. It is further pleaded that complainant paid cheque of Rs. 175110/- (One lac seventy five thousand one hundred ten) to the opposite party. It is pleaded that when muddy water came out from bore well continuously then matter was reported to the opposite party through her husband who advised complainant to change the pump by way of engaging some mechanic. It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant changed the pump by engaging service of mechanic and labourers and spent Rs. 4000/- (Four thousand). It is further pleaded that complainant again contacted opposite party through her husband and asked the opposite party to use compressor in the bore well so that muddy water could come out. It is further pleaded that opposite party advised complainant not to use the compressor but change the motor. It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant purchased new motor from Ropar. It is further pleaded that expert informed the complainant that without using compressor dirty water from the well would not stop. It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant again requested opposite party to use compressor in the bore well to purify the water from the mud. It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant purchased new motor from Ropar. It is further pleaded that expert informed the complainant that without using compressor dirty water from the well would not stop. It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant again requested opposite party to use compressor in the bore well to purify the water from the mud. It is further pleaded that thereafter opposite party came at the spot alongwith compressor and asked the complainant to advance Rs. 12000/- (Twelve thousand) for purchase of diesel and also asked the complainant to arrange plastic pipes of 1 inch dia for the purpose of using the compressor. It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant immediately spent Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) for the purchase of same. It is further pleaded that when compressor was operated in the bore well a blast took palce and plastic pipe was damaged. It is further pleaded that thereafter opposite party left the spot. It is further pleaded that complainant spent more than Rs. 160000/- (One lac sixty thousand) from his pocket for the bore well work but bore well did not function properly till date. It is further pleaded that opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 200000/- (Two lac). In addition complainant also sought relief to the effect that opposite party be ordered to get the bore well in functional position with clean water at the cost of opposite party. Complainant also sought alternative relief that opposite party be ordered to reimburse or return amount of Rs. 160000/- (One lac sixty thousand) plus Rs. 175110/- (One lac seventy five thousand one hundred ten) alongwith interest @18% per annum. 3. None appeared on behalf of opposite party despite service and thereafter on dated 21.04.2015 opposite party was proceeded ex-parte by learned District Forum. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered opposite party to get the bore well in functional position with clean water without charging anything from the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Learned District Forum further ordered that in alternative opposite party would pay sum of Rs. 160000/- (One lac sixty thousand) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 17.09.2014 till the amount is not paid. Learned District Forum further ordered that in alternative opposite party would pay sum of Rs. 160000/- (One lac sixty thousand) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 17.09.2014 till the amount is not paid. In addition learned District Forum ordered opposite party to pay punitive compensation to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) to complainant and in addition learned District Forum further ordered opposite party to pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand). 4. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum opposite party filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 7. Learned advocate appeared on behalf of complainant has given statement before learned District Forum on dated 18.01.2017 that he tendered in evidence documents annexures C-1 to C-6 including proof affidavit on behalf of complainant and closed the evidence. 8. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that appellant was not properly served in accordance with law and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that registered notice alongwith AD was sent to opposite party by learned District Forum and as per report of postal employee opposite party refused to accept the notice on dated 25.11.2014. It is also proved on record that thereafter again registered notice alongwith AD was issued to opposite party but again report was submitted by postal authority on dated 28.02.2015 that opposite party refused to accept the notice. Opposite party did not file version before learned District Forum and opposite party did not examine postal authority in order to prove the fact that postal authority did not properly served the opposite party. Hence plea of opposite party that opposite party was not properly served is defeated on the concept of ipse-dixit (An assertion made without proof). 9. Opposite party did not file version before learned District Forum and opposite party did not examine postal authority in order to prove the fact that postal authority did not properly served the opposite party. Hence plea of opposite party that opposite party was not properly served is defeated on the concept of ipse-dixit (An assertion made without proof). 9. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned District Forum did not obtain affidavits of complainant as per mode mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that evidence is obtained by the learned District Forum under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 if facts mentioned in the complaint are controverted by opposite party by way of filing written version. In the present case no version filed by opposite party and in the present case facts mentioned in the complaint were not controverted by the opposite party by way of filing written version. It is held that evidence should be obtained by learned District Forum relating to controversial facts only under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. In the present case no fact was controverted by the opposite party by way of filing written version. 10. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that order of learned District Forum is contrary to law and is also contrary to proved facts and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. We have carefully perused order passed by learned District Forum. Learned District Forum has specifically mentioned in the order that notice of consumer complaint was given to the opposite party but none appeared on behalf of opposite party before Learned District Forum. Learned District Forum has specifically mentioned in the order that claim of complainant remained uncontroverted as opposite party did not contest the claim of complainant. Learned District Forum has carefully perused annexures C-1 to C-6 filed by complainant. Learned District Forum held in positive manner that opposite party installed bore well but bore well did not function properly. Learned District Forum has specifically mentioned in positive manner that complainant has spent amount of Rs. 175110/-(One lac seventy five thousand one hundred ten) on the instalment of bore well but bore well did not function properly. Learned District Forum held in positive manner that opposite party installed bore well but bore well did not function properly. Learned District Forum has specifically mentioned in positive manner that complainant has spent amount of Rs. 175110/-(One lac seventy five thousand one hundred ten) on the instalment of bore well but bore well did not function properly. Learned District Forum has held in positive manner that opposite party has received consideration amount of Rs. 175110/-(One lac seventy five thousand one hundred ten) from complainant and committed deficiency in service and also committed unfair trade practice. Receipt relating to receive of consideration amount of Rs. 175110/-(One lac seventy five thousand one hundred ten) issued by opposite party annexure C-5 in favour of complainant remained unrebutted on record. 11. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts and on this ground appeal be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that in view of the fact that opposite party did not file any written version despite service and in view of the fact that opposite party did not controvert the facts mentioned in the complaint it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to interfere in the order passed by learned District Forum. Point No.1 is decidedly accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 12. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed and order of learned District Forum dated 24.03.2017 passed in consumer complaint No.95 of 2014 title Krishan Dev v. Chauhan Bore Well is affirmed. Reports of postal authorities relating to service of opposite party dated 25.11.2014 and 28.02.2015 qua refusal of service by opposite party will form part and parcel of order. Receipt issued by opposite party annexure C-5 relating to receipt of consideration amount of Rs. 175110/-(One lac seventy five thousand one hundred ten) from complainant for work of bore well will also form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.