R K SHANDIL Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is aggrieved from the order dated 5th September, 2005, passed by District Forum, Shimla, dismissing his complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant claims to have engaged one Mr. Rajinder Singh for carrying some welding work and paid a sum of Rs. 4,000 as advance vide cheque dated 12.10.2001. Further according to him Mr. Rajinder Singh could not start the said work, so he passed on the cheque to the respondent. Later on work was started by the respondent and he was paid another sum of Rs. 5,000 vide cheque dated 5.2.2002. Thus according to the appellant in all a sum of Rs. 9,000 was paid to the respondent in this way. Despite having asked the respondent to do the needful telephonically as well as by letters, he left the work incomplete. This was followed by a legal notice dated 27.7.2002. Appellant wanted the respondent to refund Rs. 9,000 with interest and compensation of Rs. 5,000 because according to him (the complainant -appellant), had to get the work done of the school from another welder. Allegation regarding receipt of Rs. 4,000 from Rajinder Singh was denied by the respondent. Regarding rest he stated that needful was done.

(3.) District Forum below after taking note of the pleadings and evidence filed by the parties, dismissed the complaint.