First Appeal No. 124 of 2014. Case: Amar Singh Thakur Vs D.S. Kamal. Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 124 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shashi Bhushan, Advocate and For Respondents: None |
| Judges | Surjit Singh, J. (President) and Prem Chauhan, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 |
| Citation | III (2014) CPJ 110 (HP) |
| Judgement Date | June 20, 2014 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Surjit Singh, J. (President)
-
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.
-
We have gone through the record and heard learned Counsel for the appellant.
-
Admitted facts are that the appellant is a farmer, while the respondent is a contractor, engaged in the construction of poly houses on contract basis. Appellant alleged that in February, 2009, he entered into an agreement with the respondent for the construction of a poly house on a part of his land and a sum of Rs. 1,07,000 was paid in cash against receipt, Annexure C-1, Respondent allegedly assured to complete the construction of poly house by the end of March, 2009, but he did not even start the work up to 19.4.2009, when a writing, copy Annexure C-2, was sent to him under postal certificate. Despite the sending of Annexure C-2, respondent did not undertake the work nor did he refund the advance amount of Rs. 1,07,000. So, the appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking refund of Rs. 1,07,000, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000.
-
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.
-
Learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint holding that this is a case pertaining to settlement of accounts.
-
Respondent did not deny having received a sum of Rs. 1,07,000 as advance nor did he deny that there was an agreement for the execution of poly house. He, however, denied that the construction was to be completed by the end of March, 2009. He pleaded that...
To continue reading
Request your trial