SANDEEP PARGANIHA Vs. MANOJ KUMAR TIKARIHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent, complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) Very briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent, complainant entered into an agreement with the petitioner for flooring purpose of his complex at Raipur, for a consideration of Rs. 62,475. According to him the flooring work done for the complainant was only for Rs. 31,805. The quality of the material used was not up to standard and he also did not complete the work, for which he had to spend money to complete the work from another contractor. It is in these circumstances, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund Rs. 30,195 along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment along with cost of Rs. 1,000. An appeal against this order, filed by the petitioner before the State Commission, was also dismissed, hence this revision petition.

(3.) Despite notice, none appeared for the petitioner but we go on to pass the order based on the material on record. There are two main grounds advanced before us for admitting the revision petition - one that the work to be executed by the petitioner in favour of the complainant was of commercial nature, hence outside the purview of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986; and secondly, the order of the District Forum, which was ex parte, could not be sustained in view of the plea taken by the petitioner before the State Commission that no notice was served on him.