IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Summary Procedure – The procedure under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is summary in nature and the law is well laid down in this regard.
(2) “Service Provider” – The State Commission has rightly refrained from adjudicating on these issues as there is no supporting evidence, especially with regard to a formal agreement between the parties to establish the relationship of a ‘consumer’ with a ‘service provider’.

ORDER

The present appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment dated 5th August 2016 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad in Complaint no. 33 of 2012.

2. The brief facts as stated by the appellant are that the appellant no.1, Manidweep Ashram Trust, had filed a consumer complaint in their personal capacity against the contractors / respondents herein alleging deficiency of service in construction of temple for their deity ‘Bhuvaneshwari Mata Temple’. It was contended that even after receiving 90% of the agreed amount for the construction of the temple, the construction work of the temple has not yet been completed. Appellant nos. 2 to 8 herein who are the trustees of Appellant no.1 had on 25.04.2005 executed the Trust Deed and on 09.11.2005 registered the Manidweep Ashram Trust who is appellant no.1.

3. The respondent herein are traders-cum-building contractors and run their business in the name of Sompura Navinchandra Chunnnilal, Shrine Temple Contractor and Stone Trader situated at Ganesh Society, Jogsar Road, Dhrangadhra, District Surendra Nagar, Gujarat – 363 310. The appellant had entered into a contract with the respondent to construct the temple at Ambasar in 2007 for Rs.58,00,000/- within a span of three months. The respondents started the construction work of the temple on 10.09.2007 but the left the construction midway and did not complete the work in the stipulated time even after admittedly receiving Rs.53.68 lakhs. The appellant filed a police complaint against the opponents for cheating, criminal breach of trust etc. on the grounds that the respondent left the construction work incomplete and was also demanding extra money by disputing the agreed amount for the construction of the temple. On 18.11.2011 a settlement/ compromise agreement was executed and signed by both the parties wherein the respondents agreed to complete the construction of the temple within one year and the Trust agreed to pay an amount of Rs.12 lakh in a time bound manner and Rs.5.00 lakh after completion of the work addition.

4. The appellant on 08.06.2012 sent a Legal Notice to the respondents stating that even after accepting the contract in the year 2007 for Rs.58,00,000/- to construct the temple within three years, the respondents after undertaking some construction demanded more money whereas only 30% of the work was completed. The appellant sought refund of the money after deducting the amount for the actual work worth Rs.15 lakh. It is alleged that the respondents did not intend to complete the work or return the money taken from the appellant and in their reply dated 23.06.2012 denied the claim of the appellants and disputed that a contract for the construction was fixed between the parties at Rs.71,00,000/-.

5. The appellants thereafter filed consumer complaint no.33 of 2012 against the respondent before the State Commission seeking refund of Rs.40,00,000/-. On 23.12.2013, the appellants filed documentary evidence in support of their claim including detailed calculations of paid amount, all the bills issued by the respondent, certificate issued by the Government approved Engineer regarding the work done and other documents. As per the certificate dated 15.12.2013 issued by the Government approved Engineer and Contractor, Shri Kamlesh Patel, Civil Engineer, only 30% construction work (Structure) of the temple has been done and the balance work of temple was incomplete. The respondents in their reply dated 13.02.2014 admitted to have received Rs.53.68 lakhs from the appellant. The appellants in their rejoinder to the reply of the respondent reiterated their claim as contended in the consumer complaint. On 06.12.2014, the sub-contractor for masonry work engaged by the respondent in its affidavit dated 06.12.2014 filed before the State Commission stated that Shri Manidwep Ashram Trust had awarded a big contract to construct temple in Ambasar to S