Mr. Justice Dr. Eurico Da Silva, President—The challenge in this appeal is the order of the District Forum, South Goa, dated 29.7.1999, in Complaint No. 60/98 which has partly granted reliefs sought for by the appellant while rejected some others, concerning to the payment of the claim for makeshift wiring, the provision of lift to the suit building and the direction to execute the conveyance deed in the appellant’s favour.

2. The complainant/appellant has approached the Forum alleging deficiency in service rendered by the respondent and various grievances were mentioned in the complaint. It was the case of the appellant that, by Agreement dated 6.11.1993, the respondent undertook to construct for him office premises with a build up area of 27.50 sq. mtrs. for a total consideration of Rs. 2,42,550/-. The possession of the premises was supposed to be given on 8.6.1996, but the respondent delivered it in incomplete condition with some deficiencies which, in part, were even corrected by the appellant himself. It is the grievance of the appelant that the Forum ought to have considered all the prayers made by him in his affidavit in evidence and also in the rejoinder affidavit dated 9.12.1998 and once the Forum had come to the conclusion that the respondent had been deficient in rendering services, all the reliefs should have been granted to him.

3. We have gone through the records and considered the oral and written submissions of the parties. We are of the view that the appellant’s grievances are somehow sound and justified. The refusal by the Forum in considering his claim with regard to the makeshift wiring does not appear to be reasonable so much so the evidence on record indicates that nowhere the respondent had denied the expenses actually incurred by the appellant for the purpose of providing due illumination to the suit building. With regard to the lift we are also of the view that the ground taken by the Forum to reject the appellant’s prayer, mainly the fact of Agreement being not made available to the Forum, is not also permissible so much so in the previous complaint filed by the appellant before the Forum such Agreement seems to have been filed and nothing prevented the Forum to either direct the appellant to produce a new copy of the Agreement in the present complaint which should be viewed as continuation of the previous one or to call for the relevant file and deal with the matter accordingly. Similarly and in respect of the relief sought by the appellant for a direction to the respondent to execute the conveyance of office premises sold to him, we fail to appreciate as to how the learned Forum could have overlooked to grant such prayer which, although was not specifically mentioned in the original prayer clause, had been expressly made in his affidavit in rejoinder and reiterated in his written submissions. We are of the view that the learned Forum was expected to be slow in sticking to mere technicalities on this count and should instead duly apply its mind to all the substantive issues raised and the consequential reliefs sought for by the appellant. We are, therefore, inclined to remand this case to the Forum to appropriately adjudicated on the concerned prayers which were missed to be considered on the basis of the materials on record and after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard on the matter.

4. In the result, we partly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order only to the restricted extent of the reliefs which were either rejected or failed to be looked into and direct the learned Forum to pass a fresh order in this regard as per law and in the light of the observations recorded by us above. Order accordingly.

Appeal partly allowed.

–––