M/s Per Avel Beach Holiday Home

R/o Dando, CandolimBeach, Goa,

Bardez owned by Shri Avelino D’osuza

Represented by his power of Attorney,

Smt. Perpetua D’souza. …………………..Complainant



V/S



Shri Cosme D’Silva

R/o H. No. 17, St. Bras

Gaundelim Kumbharjua Goa,

Post Marcel – 403 113. …………………Opposite Party







Date:-09/04/2009

ORDER

(Per Smt. Shanti Maria Fonseca, Sr. Member)


Brief facts of the case:-

1. The Complainant who is the power of Attorney holder of M/s. Per Avel Beach Holiday Home at Candolim, Goa had purchased from M/s. B. R. Enterprises a Racold Solar Water Heater of 1000 L pd (two systems of 500 L pd each). The main grievance of the Complainant is that the work of plumbing for the above system of hot and cold water was entrusted to the Opposite Party and according to her the work done by him was defective as only hot water was flowing through the pipes. It is also her case that the tanks of water were overflowing and being a holiday home the guests in the holiday home were not prepared to stay. It is also the case of the Complainant that she had purchased electric auto motor pumps from the Opposite Party. The same has been admitted by the Opposite Party.



2. According to the Opposite Party the present case has been filed by the Complainant only to harass and to extract some money from him. It is his case that he is in the plumbing business in the name of Consum Marketing and that his services were engaged only for the purpose of connecting the pipe line for the solar water heater upto the existing geezer point.

3. It is further his case that out of the total charges amounting to Rs.52,919/- (Rupees fifty two thousand nine hundred and nineteen only) the Opposite Party has paid him an amount of Rs.34,000/- (Rupees thirty four thousand only) and that the remaining amount of Rs.18,919/- (Rupees eighteen thousand nine hundred and nineteen only) is still due from the Complainant.In this context bills under invoice nos. M-0017, M-0018 and M-0019 have been exhibited before us. The Complainant has admitted in her pleadings that the total amount paid to the Opposite Party was Rs.34,000/- (Rupees thirty four thousand only). The same can be verified with para 3 (a) (b) (c) and (d) of the complaint. According to the Opposite Party there are about 21 rooms at the hotel of the Complainant and the same are functioning without the service of a plumber.

OBSERVATIONS:

1.According to the Complainant the work of plumbing of their solar water heater (2 nos.) was entrusted to the Opposite Party. This fact stands admitted by the Opposite Party. The Complainant has however remained silent and there has been no denial throughout the proceedings with regard to the balance payment as per bills produced by the Opposite Party amounting to Rs.18,919/- (Rupees eighteen thousand nine hundred and nineteen only).

2.This Complainant has come before us alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. It is her case that due to the defective plumbing of the Opposite Party that she had to suffer damages. The Complainant has tried to corroborate the same with a copy of e-mail from a foreigner Barbara Roesch which speaks of “Either no water on boiling hot water or water pouring from the reservoirs”. The major part of the e-mail however points out to deficiency in services of the hotel towards its customers. This e-mail dated 22.12.04 cannot be used as evidence against defective work done by the Opposite Party with regard to poor plumbing.

3.There has been no effort made by the Complainant to substantiate her allegations of improper service by the Opposite Party and hence the same remains unproved. This could have been done by filing of affidavits of witnesses or the report of an expert.

4.Going through records it also appears that the Opposite Party is not a stranger to the Complainant but an old hand who has been providing his services to her for many years. It can therefore be safely presumed that the Complainant had engaged the services of the Opposite Party because of certain confidence that she had in him.

5.We have gone through the police complaint dated 13.11.04 lodged by the Complainant against the Opposite Party. It is our considered opinion that the police have very correctly not taken any action against the Opposite Party as the role of the police is the maintenance of law and order. Going through all the evidence that has been placed before us we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant has failed to establish before us any case of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. As such we pass the following ;

ORDER

1.Matter stands disposed as dismissed.