Sri. L. Manoharan, President-The complainant in OP. 487/97 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur is the appellant. The complainant alleged before the District Forum that he entrusted the construction of his abuilding on 28.8.1994 with the opposite party. According to him that included supervision, supply of materials and construction. The complainant alleged that, as on 1. 8.1995 he had paid to the opposite party an amount of Rs. 1,80,600/- and the opposite party had spend only and amount of Rs. 71,522/- thus there is a balance of Rs. 1,09,078/- due to him from the opposite party. The opposite party in his version maintained that, the supervision charge was 8% and not 4% as is maintained by the complainant. According to him, he received only an amount of Rs. 1,55,200/- and that an amount of Rs. 84,671/- is due to him from the complainant.

The complainant produced documents and give evidence as PWI. The opposite party produced Ext. B 1. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the matter involves settlement of accounts and therefore the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum.

2. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant has filed this appeal. Learned Counsel contented that, complainant had produced Ext. A1 to A7 and had given evidence as PWl. According to the learned counsel Exts. A6 and A 7 would support the allegation of the complainant especially. in view of the evidence of the complainant as PWl. It is urged that, since, the opposite party did not enter the box, there was no reason why said evidence tendered by the complainant could not have been acted upon.

3. He relied on the decision of this Commission reported in 1998(1) CPJ 331 to contend that, a similar circumstance this Commission has given relief to the complainant. Therefore, he maintained that, the view taken by the District Forum cannot be supported.

4. We do not consider that, we should go into the merit of the matter, but since in as much as, as per the allegations in the complaint and his evidence as PW l, the matter involves the service of the opposite party, it cannot be characterised, the matter concerns only settlement of account. This is particularly so since where as the complainant maintained 4% as the supervision charge, the opposite party maintained that the supervision charge is only 8%. At the most what could be said is, it involves not only service but also supply of materials. The matter cannot be said to involve purely settlement of accounts. In that view we set aside the order and remit the matter to the District Forum which shall give further opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence on their respective contentions, and they will go into the question except the question as the maintainability, and dispose the matter as per law. The parties will appear before the District Forum on 12.11.1998. There will be no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.