GERMAN DIAS vs VICTORIA BRAGANZA

THE challenge in this appeal is the order of the District Forum, North Goa, dated 27.9.1999, in Complaint No. 20/96. By the aforesaid order the appellant was directed to refund to the respondents, the original complainants, a sum of Rs. 23,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1.1.1995 till its full realisation. A further direction was made to the appellant to pay to the respondents Rs. 1,000/- as notional compensation towards tension and mental torture besides costs of Rs. 500/-.

THE respondents had sought from the appellant a quotation to repair their house at Salvador deo Mundo in order to carry on repairs at the cost of Rs. 85,000/- which offer was accepted by the respondents and an advance payment of Rs. 50,000/- was made to the appellant. THE work started in the first week of July, 1994 and in the first week of August, 1994, the respondents made another payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant as advance for further works. THEreupon the appellant was paid in all by the respondents, in instalments, the total amount of Rs. 81,000/-. The complaint was filed by the respondents on the ground that the appellant left the work incomplete and therefore work worth Rs. 36,437/- had to be got completed by them through another contractor. The appellant''s case was that the remaining balance work was only to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and material worth Rs. 12,000/- was lying at the site. However, inspite of the appellant having expressed his willingness to complete the work and stated that he had not abandoned it, the Forum allowed the respondents'' claim and directed the payment claimed by them in addition to damages of Rs. 1,000/-.

We have gone through the records and considered the oral submissions of the respondents'' learned Counsel. The appellant remained absent although duly served.

IN our view there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order of the learned Forum. The appellant has admitted that he was bound to complete the specified job of repairs of respondent''s house for which he had been entrusted to the entire satisfaction of the respondents. To that extent only an oral agreement was entered into by the parties whereby an estimate of Rs. 87,000/- proposed by the appellant to carry on the job was accepted by the respondents. The appellant has also admitted in his affidavit in evidence that he has kept the work incomplete. The record shows that the appellant has even written to the respondents asking them to bear with him on account of his inability to proceed with the work due to some other urgent job he had to undergo. The appellant''s allegation that the work, although restarted, could not be completed even at a later stage due to non-availability of materials and skilled workers have not been proved or conclusively established on record. On the other hand we are not prepared to accept the appellant''s contention that no fix period of time was established for the completion of the work for the simple reason that the respondents could not have advanced such a gross sum of money to carry on repair works at their residence without making sure that the work would be finalised within a fixed period of time. Further, from the own admission of the appellant, it is seen that consequent upon the agreement an amount towards costs of the work to be carried on in more than 50% had been already advanced by the respondents to appellant. The appellant also conceded that there was still work to be done for the completion of the job worth more than Rs. 5,000/-, contrary to the respondents'' cost that this work was estimated in more than Rs. 37,000/-. The record shows that this assessment has been substantiated by reliable affidavits while the cost of the balance work estimated by the appellant finds no support on any cogent proof acceptable in the eye of law. In the circumstanecs, we are satisfied that the learned Forum has exercised properly its jurisdiction in arriving at a figure of Rs. 23,000/- based on the material available on record as being due by the appellant to the respondents towards the balance work still remained to be finalised and in this regard we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Similarly the notional compensation of Rs. 1,000/- awarded to the respondents towards mental damages and anxiety seems also due and reasonable and is not required to be modified.

IN this view of the matter the appeal is bound to fail and is hereby dismissed with, however, no order as to costs. Order accordingly. Appeal dismissed.