STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH [ADDITIONAL BENCH]

Appeal No. : 375 of 2024 Date of Institution : 18.11.2024 Date of Decision : 04.11.2025 Sh. Surinder Pal Singh Sachar S/o Sh. Ajit Singh Sachar, aged about 61 years, R/o House No.106, Sector 55, Palsora, Chandigarh 160055.

Appellant/Complainant VERSUS Eden Garden Interior Decorate, Proprietor Sh. Deepak Goyal S/o Dharamvir Goyal, R/o Houe No.4924, Gali No.22/6, Pratap Nagar, Bathinda, Punjab – 151005.

Also:- R/o House No.1021, Paani Waali Gali, Badal Colony, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab (Permanent R/o Street No.214, Ward No.35, Partap Nagar, Bathinda, Punjab – 151005).

….Respondent/Opposite Party BEFORE: SMT. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER SH. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER ARGUED BY :-

Sh. Manan, Advocate proxy for Sh. Amar Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Sorabh Goyal, Advocate for the respondent.

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal arises from an order dated 11.07.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (referred to as the 'District Commission') vide which consumer complaint No.894 of 2022 filed by the complainant – Sh. Surinder Pal Singh Sachar (appellant herein)

has been dismissed.

2] The case of the appellant/complainant before the District Commission was that he purchased Flat No.701, Falcon View, Sector 66-A, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab and engaged the respondent/opposite party for complete renovation and furnishing including materials and labour. After a meeting at the appellant’s Chandigarh residence, the respondent estimated the total cost at ₹45,60,000/- and assured premium services with timely completion. Relying on these assurances, the appellant paid the respondent the full amount of ₹45,60,000/- through bank transactions (Annexure C-1 colly). However, the respondent soon began delaying the work and on 24.12.2021, stopped construction entirely, becoming unresponsive. Allegedly, the respondent spent ₹13,60,000/- on the work and misusing the remaining ₹32,00,000/- for personal purposes and promised to refund this amount via two cheques of ₹16,00,000 each dated 03.01.2022 and 12.01.2022. When presented on 05.03.2022, both cheques were dishonoured due to “Funds Insufficient.” The appellant discovered that the respondent had similarly cheated several other clients, with multiple civil and criminal cases pending against him in the Tricity area (Annexure C-7). The appellant had to redo the entire renovation at his own cost. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the appellant filed a complaint before the District Commission.

3] The respondent/opposite party contested the complaint by filing its reply, wherein, it was pleaded that the respondent had provided all the complete services of the renovation of the flat as per verbal conditions to the appellant including furniture, refrigerator and LED television etc. It was denied that the appellant deposited any amount to the Bank account of the respondent through G-Pay. It was further stated that the respondent issued 2 cheques bearing No.012059 and 12058 on 3.1.2022 and 12.1.2022 respectively and never cheated nor defraud with the appellant. Rest of the averments and allegations were dened being wrong.

4] The appellant filed rejoinder before the District Commission reiterating the averments made in his complaint and repudiating those as stated in the reply of the respondent.

5] Parties also led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective cases.

6] After hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the record, the District Commission dismissed the consumer complaint as stated above.

7] The appellant/complainant has sought setting aside of the impugned order by allowing his appeal and the consumer complaint on same submissions as had been made by him in his consumer complaint before the District Commission. Additionally, it has been stated that the respondent has failed to provide sa