AMAR SINGH THAKUR Vs. D.S. KAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against respondent -D.S. Kamal, has been dismissed with the observation that the dispute raised in the complaint pertains to settlement of accounts and, hence, it is cognizable only by the Civil Court. Respondent has not put in appearance despite service. On the previous date, one Advocate, by the name of Mr. D.R. Verma appeared and filed Power of Attorney. Today, he is not present.

(2.) WE have gone through the record and heard learned Counsel for the appellant.

(3.) RESPONDENT contested the complaint. Though he did admit having received a sum of Rs. 1,07,000 as advance money, he denied that he had not started the work. He stated that on the spot, he had carried out around 15% of the total work. According to him, the total agreed cost of the work was Rs. 8.00 lacs and part of the work, which he had executed, was worth Rs. 1,20,000, or say more than the amount, which the appellant had paid by way of advance.