Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

            Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent/complainant entered into a contact with the petitioner for drilling a bore well in his land.  The cost of the work was estimated at Rs.1,12,000/-.  Petitioner had agreed to commence the work on 24.4.2007 but till the first week of May 2007, the work had not commenced.  After some time, petitioner started the drilling work but stopped the work in middle.  Complainant had already paid Rs.87,000/- to the petitioner by various cheques on different dates.  Complainant had also incurred an expense of Rs.25,000/- towards purchase of water for drilling and casing pipes and all other material like storage tanks and pipes etc.  Petitioner did not complete the drilling work. 

Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, which was dismissed initially, against which the respondent/complainant filed Appeal No.860/2008 before the State Commission.  The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and remitted the case back to the District Forum with a direction to dispose of the complaint after due Notice to the parties and giving them an opportunity to file fresh/additional evidence.

            After remand, counsel for the complainant appeared but the counsel for the petitioner remained absent in spite of two adjournments granted to him for appearance.  As the petitioner was not represented in spite of service, the District Forum placed the petitioner ex parte.  The complainant led his evidence.  Relying upon the evidence led by the respondent/complainant and taking note of the fact that the evidence led by the respondent had gone unrebutted because of the non-appearance of the petitioner, District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the sum of Rs.1,20,000/- within 6 weeks from the date of passing of the order along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint till its realization.  Rs.5,000/- were awarded as costs.

            Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an Appeal with a delay of 95 days.  State Commission dismissed the Appeal being barred by time as well as on merits.  State Commission took note of the fact that, in spite of an opportunity provided to the petitioner after remand to lead evidence, the petitioner did not lead any evidence thereby letting the evidence led by the respondent unrebutted.

            We agree with the view taken by the State Commission and find no infirmity in the same.  Dismissed.