Dr. Ajit Kossambe,
Shri Sat Sai,
Shantinagar Junction,
Ponda, Goa ……………….Complainant

V

Gomakant Mahambre,
R/o 27, Ganganagar Housing Colony,
Curti, Ponda – Goa. ......………...…..Opposite Party -1

M/s. Akruti Architects & Associates,
Represented by Mr. R.R. Mhambre,
Ground Floor, Opp. Goa Urban Co-op. Bank,
Ponda Commerce Centre,
Ponda – Goa .....………...…..Opposite Party -2

M/s Silicoat Ltd.,
Through its proprietor
Mr. Santosh R. Sahakari,
# 84 & 85, Bethora Ind. Estate,
Ponda, Goa. ......………...…..Opposite Party -3

Electro-Tech Engineering,
Thorugh its Proprietor,
Mr. Xavier Godinho,
Gr. Floor (Backwing),
Raj Garden Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,
Khadpaband, Ponda – Goa. ......………...…..Opposite Party -4

Shahin Marbles
Thorugh its Proprietor
Mr. Pirsaab Shaikh, (Dudu)
After M. S. Military Camp Pali,
After Lakaki Bus Stop, Margao,
Sanvordem Road, Margao, Goa ......………...…..Opposite Party -5

Benson Interior Designers,
Engineers & Civil Contractors,
Plot No.646, Bautona, Chorao,
Ilhas – Goa. ......………...…..Opposite Party -6





Date: 27/04/2009


O R D E R

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

Brief facts of the Case:-

1.By the present complaint, the Complainant, who is a Veterinary doctor and residing at Ponda, Goa availed the services of the Opposite Parties and now seeks reliefs alleging deficiency of service by them. It is his case that he had engaged the services of the Opposite Parties -1 & -2 as Consultant Architects for the purpose of constructing a bungalow. According to the Complainant the Opposite Part -3 to -6 were the agencies appointed by Opposite Parties -1 and -2 to get several other works of the bungalow completed.

2.According to the Complainant the installation of PFMC tiles done by the Opposite Party-3 was incomplete and did not have the required finishing coat to give the expected results. Certificate of M/s. Gayatri Constructions dated 12.08.02 has been placed on record and exhibited before us to corroborate the same. It is also his case that the Opposite Party No.4 who was an Electrical Contractor had overcharged him and left some electric points incomplete.

3.The Opposite Party-1 in his reply dated 7/3/03 has denied in his preliminary objections that there is any transaction between the Complainant and himself. It is his case that his services were never engaged by the Complainant. The Opposite Party-1 has also submitted before this Court that he is in the service of the Government of Goa and is working as an “Architectural Assistant” in the Public Works Department since 2/3/2000. The Opposite Party -1 has also denied having any relationship with M/s. Akruti Architects and Associates. It is the case of the Opposite Party-1 that the Complainant has a personal enemity with him and has therefore filed this complaint to harass him.

4.The Opposite Party -2 in his reply dated 7/3/03 has also denied in his preliminary objections that there is any transaction between the Complainant and himself, except for some preliminary discussions as regards his appointment as Architect for the bungalow. It is his case that in January 2000, the Complainant approached him with a request to work as an Architect for his proposed bungalow at Ponda. According to the Opposite Party-2 he accepted this offer and gave the Architectural fees vide his letter dated 20/10/2000. It is his case that he has no professional relationship with the Opposite Party -1 and that the present complaint has been filed against him for the purpose of torturing him.

5.The Opposite Party-3 in his reply dated 26.02.03 has stated that the question of completing any work for the Complainant does not arise since the work was completed in all respects on 30.03.02. It is also his case that he has nothing to do with the Opposite Party -1 and that the work was directly allotted to him by the Complainant.

6.The Opposite Party-4 in his reply dated 7/3/03 has stated before us that he has nothing to do with the Opposite Party -1 and that his services have been directly engaged by the Complainant to whom he submitted his quotation on 6.12.00. It is his case that during the time that work was being done he was continuously furnishing running bills so as to show the stage of work and also to justify the Opposite Parties’ investment in purchasing material, labour etc. According to the Opposite Party -4 after submitting this final bill and test report, the Complainant raised no grievance about the quality of work, or about the amount of the final bill. The Opposite Party-4 has admitted to having received Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand only) from the Complainant. It is his case however that the Complainant still owes him a sum of Rs.61,395/- (Rupees sixty one thousand three hundred and ninety five only) which he promised to pay him after the inauguration of the bungalow. It is his case that the present complaint has been filed solely for the purpose of avoiding payment of the balance bill.

7.The Opposite Party -5 in his reply dated 17/3/03 has stated before us that he was independently employed by the Complainant for the purpose of supply and fixing of marble and khadappa. It is also his case that there is an outstanding amount of Rs.91,002/- (Rupees Ninety One Thousand and two only) yet to be paid by the Complainant to him. A bill for the same has been exhibited before us. It is his case that the present case is false and has been filed by the Complainant only to prevent the Opposite Parties from filing a suit of recovery against him.

8.The Opposite Party -6 has in his reply dated 9/6/03 stated before us that he was engaged independently by the Complainant and by the Opposite Party-1. It is his case that during the progress of work, the Complainant was directly supervising the activities. It is his case that the said plumbing work has been carried out by him to the utmost satisfaction of the Complainant. The Opposite Party -6 has also submitted before us that even though he has submitted a bill for Rs.1,94,011.95/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Four Thousand Eleven And Paise Ninety Five Only) the Complainant has paid him only Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Five Thousand Only). It is also his case that he later spent Rs.2,250/- and Rs.977/- on the purchase of two basins. According to the Opposite Party -6 therefore the Complainant still owes him Rs.41,238.95/- (Forty One Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Eight and Paise Ninety Five Only). It is his case that the present case has been filed before this Forum inorder to evade payment of the remaining amounts due to him.

OBSERVATIONS

1.The Complainant has not been able to establish before this Forum a relationship between the Opposite Party -1 and the construction of his bungalow. Photographs showing the presence of the Opposite Party -1 at the inaugural function of the house warming ceremony of the Complainant does not constitute sufficient evidence that the Opposite Party -1 was instrumental in the construction of the bungalow of the Complainant. No affidavit has been filed by Engineer Prakash Lawande stating that it was at his instance that the services of Opposite Party -1 were engaged by the Complainant.

2.Several grievances have been set out against the Opposite Party -2 by the Complainant in his Complaint. However the Complainant has sought no relief from this Forum against the Opposite Party -2.

3.Other than allegations the Complainant has not been able to satisfy this Forum about the alleged incomplete work of the Opposite Party -3.

4.The Complainant has also not been able to establish before this Forum that excess amounts of Rs.20,500/-, Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.25,500/- were infact paid to the Opposite Party -4, Opposite Party -5 and Opposite Party -6.

5.Nowhere in the complaint has the Complainant alleged/ pointed out to any deficiency in service with regard to the plumbing work done by the Opposite Party -6. Going through all evidence and documents that has been placed before us we are of the considered opinion that no case of deficiency in service has been sufficiently established before us and hence we pass the following:

ORDER


1.Matter stands disposed as dismissed.