1.       This appeal is preferred by the original complainant against the judgment and order dated 20.05.2009 passed by District Forum, Aurangabad in C.C.No.756/2008, by which the said complaint has been dismissed.

2.       The facts in brief giving rise to present appeal are that, complainant filed complaint with allegations in brief that he had paid  by way of four cheques total amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to the original opponent i.e. respondent herein for doing work of interior decoration in his shop. The opponent after much delay did sub-standard work in the said shop. Complainant brought to the notice of opponent of said sub-standard work and defects in the interior decoration which are stated in detail in the complaint.  The complainant also served legal notice dated 14.11.2008 to the opponent and then he filed complaint before Dist.Forum claiming total amount of Rs.1,73,500/- from opponent as assessed in the complaint.

3.       Opponent/respondent filed written version before the District Forum below and denied the case of complainant in toto and submitted that no contract is entered in between him and complainant as alleged in the complaint. Therefore  he is not liable to pay any such amount to the complainant.

4.       District Forum below after considering evidence brought to it`s notice and hearing advocates of both the parties, came to the conclusion that no evidence was produced to prove the allegations made in the complaint. Therefore it dismissed the complaint.

5.       We have heard Adv.U.N.Shete at the stage of admission of appeal. None had appeared for respondent when complaint was heard at admission stage, though respondent was duly served with notice.  It is submitted by advocate of appellant that payment of Rs.1,25,000/- was made by appellant to the respondent by way of four cheques and one cheque issued for Rs.25,000/- was drawn in the name of respondent and two cheques were drawn in the name of complainant but their amount was paid to the respondent and fourth cheque was drawn in the name of Mohmmad Mushvik at the request of respondent who is his maternal uncle. He has drawn our attention to the bank account statement of the complainant in support of his said submission.  He has also brought to our notice the copies of three cheques as obtained from concern bank and produced before this Commission.  He therefore argued that said material was not properly considered by District Forum below and it erroneously held there was no evidence in support of the case of the complainant.

6.       Perusal of the copies of those three cheques shows that one cheque No.748123 was drawn in the name of complainant i.e. self for Rs.40,000/-. Second cheque No.748121 was drawn in the name of respondent Sayyad Sajed Ali for Rs.30,000/-. Third cheque No. 748122 was drawn in the name of complainant i.e. self for Rs.30,000/-.  Perusal of account statement does not show that cheque No.748121 was encashed by the respondent. Aforesaid account statement does not show the name of respondent as drawee  of any of the cheque.  One of the entries regarding fourth cheque No.748124 shows drawer`s name as Mushifoddin. Complainant has not produced any document showing any concern in between said Mushifoddin and respondent so far as disputed transaction is concerned.  Therefore  on the basis of aforesaid four cheques and account statement no relationship is proved in between appellant and respondent as consumer and service provider as alleged in the complaint. There is no other evidence to prove that there was any privity of contract in between appellant and respondent so far as the interior decoration work of appellant  is concerned.

7.       Appellant has also not produced any material showing that the respondent had agreed to do work of interior decoration of his shop as per specification mentioned in the complaint. There is as such no document about nature and quality of work which was to be performed in the shop of complainant.  In the absence of any such document, it cannot be said that complainant has proved deficiency in alleged service provided to him by the respondent.

8.       We thus find that District Forum below has correctly appreciated the evidence brought on record and passed the correct impugned judgment and order. Therefore appeal deserves to be dismissed. We thus pass the following order.

                                                O   R    D    E    R

1.     Appeal is dismissed. 

2.     Both parties shall bear their own costs.

3.     Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.   

Pronounced and dictated on 08.10.2012.