STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CHANDIGARH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/4/A/363/2024 WITH SC/4/IA/136/2025 (PLACING RECORD)

CAPT VINOD CHAUDHRI SON OF LATE SH SHAM LAL CHAUDHRI PRESENT ADDRESS - HNO 1277 SECTOR 34C CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

GEETA CHAUDHRI DAUGHTER OF SH VINOD CHAUDHRI PRESENT ADDRESS - HNO 1277 SECTOR 34 C CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

LATE SH RL CHAUDHRI SON OF LATE SH SHAM LAL CHAUDHRI PRESENT ADDRESS - HNO 1277 SECTOR 34C CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus BALAJI BUILDERS THROUGH SH. MUKESH MEHTA PRESENT ADDRESS - SCO NO 666 2ND FLOOR SECTOR 70 SAS NAGAR MOHALI PUNJAB,CHANDIGARH.

SH SANCHIT MEHAN SON OF SH SUDESH MEHAN PRESENT ADDRESS - HNO 344 SECTOR 38A CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. PREETINDER SINGH , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

CAPT VINOD CHAUDHRI SON OF LATE SH SHAM LAL CHAUDHRI DATED: 10/02/2026

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH

1. Capt. Vinod Chaudhri S/o Late Sh. Sham Lal Chaudhri, R/o 1277, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.

2. Geeta Chaudhri D/o Sh. Vinod Chaudhri, R/o H.No.1277, Sector 34- C, Chandigarh

3. Sh. R.L. Chaudhri (since deceased) S/o Late Sh. Sham Lal Chaudhri, R/o H.No.1277, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.

……Appellants/complainants V e r s u s

1. M/s Balaji Builders, SCO No.666, 2 nd Floor, Sector 70, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali (Punjab) through Sh.

Mukesh Mehta.

2. Sh. Sanchit Mehan S/o Sh.Sudesh Mehan, R/o H.No.344, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh …..Respondents/opposite parties BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER Present:-

Sh.Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the appellants alongwith Capt. Vinod Chaudhri-

appellant no.1 in person.

Sh.Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate for the respondent no.1.

Sh.Rajneesh Kaushal, Advocate for respondent no.2 alongwith Sh.Sanchit Mehan, respondent no.2 in person.

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT The complainants (now appellants) have assailed the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), vide which the consumer complaint bearing no.814 of 2022 filed by them was dismissed by it.

2. Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainants that the opposite parties represented themselves to be reputed builders operating in the Tricity area. In response to advertisements published in leading newspapers, opposite party no.2 approached the complainants and held himself out as an expert in providing cutting-edge technology for construction of modern residential buildings. The complainants intended to construct House No. 3318 and House No. 1214 situated at Sector 82-A, IT City, Mohali. After the initial meeting, opposite party no.2 stated that the deal would be finalized after consulting his engineer, who was arrayed as opposite party no.1. Thereafter, both OPs met Complainant No.1 and agreed to undertake the construction of House No. 3318 for a consideration of Rs.

Rs.

21,00,000/- and House No. 1214 for Rs.13,00,000/-, thereby settling the total cost of construction at

34,00,000/-. It was agreed that House No. 3318 would be completed within a period of six months, which was to include construction of a complete basement with tiled flooring and one living unit on the first floor. The opposite parties assured that the construction would be completed within the stipulated time. However, upon completion, the construction was found to be of extremely poor and substandard quality. Opposite party no.2 received payments from Complainant No.1 from time to time under his own signatures, while representing himself to be a close partner of opposite party no.1. Subsequently, it came to the knowledge of the complainants that opposite party no.2 was a BDS doctor by profession and had no technical expertise in construction, thereby misleading the complainants by falsely projecting himself as an expert. Further, the subject houses developed serious structural defects, incl