Date of filing: 13/04/2019 Date of order: 17/03/2026 BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO. 863/2019 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO: CC/173/2016 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION: SATARA M/S KLASSYCON ENTERPRISES through APPELLANT Its Prop. Ms. SAYALI RAJESH HAMBIR Alias SMT. SAYALI VIPUL BHADANGE R/O: C/o Leena D'Souza, Flat No.802, Building No.A12, Nanded City, Sinhgad Road, Tal-Haveli, Dist: Pune 411041.

VERSUS MR. GAJANAN BHAUSAHEB BHILARE RESPONDENT R/O: At/Post Bhilar- Kaswad, Hira Baug, Tal- Mahabaleshwar, Dist.- Satara.

CORAM:

Justice S. P. Tavade, Hon’ble President Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Hon’ble Member APPEARANCE For Appellant: Adv.Ganesh Paygude on VC For Respondent: None J U D G M E N T (Delivered on 17/03/2026)

Per Dr.Nisha Amol Chavhan, Hon’ble Member.

1. This is an appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Satara (‘District Commission’ for short) on dated 31/07/2017 in Consumer Complaint No.CC/173/2016 filed by the Respondent. In the said case, the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to complete the remaining work of huts and directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for loss and Rs.3000/- for cost of the case within 90 days from the date of receiving the copy of order.

The facts of the case

2. The case of the Appellant is that, the Respondent contacted Appellant for the work of fixing roof shingles & APP membrane for Huts in Hotel/Luxurious Resorts Hira bag at Bhilar, Mahabaleshwar. Accordingly, the Appellant took the measurements with the Respondent of said work. Thereafter Appellant prepared and submitted the said quotation of approximate measurement of an area of 7000 sq. ft. for the rate of Rs.93/- for Shingles + Rs.28/- for Membrane per Sq. Ft. i.e. for the total consideration of Rs.9,04,603/-.

3. The Appellant submitted that, he informed the Respondent that the work will be started only upon fulfilment of terms and conditions and advance payment for work decided between both the parties. The important conditions of the contract that after receiving the 80% payment and order of requisite work, Appellant will start the work on site only because of after getting work order Appellant requires to import the material if it is not available and same would take time for at least 50 to 60 days. Hence to start the actual work on site 80% payment requires to be given as early as possible.

4. The Appellant further submitted that, on 21/03/2016 Respondent transferred the amount of Rs.3,50,000/-by NEFT/ RTGS to Appellant on the same day, Respondent did not provide the work order. But only upon the oral communication, Appellant started the initial work on 30/03/2016 of Waterproofing Membrane and completed the said initial work within a week i.e.

05/04/2016.

5. The Appellant also submitted that even after repeated request, the Respondent had not provided work order and further payment for further work. Thereafter on 21/04/2016 Respondent transferred an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by NEFT/RTGS to Appellant as part payment. Upon the said payment, the Appellant again insisted for work order but Respondent did not provide the same but again on oral request of Respondent, he started the work of Asphalt Shingle at the end of April 2016 but Appellant could not complete the said work due to want of work order.

6. The Appellant submitted that, on 18/07/2016, the Respondent suddenly issued the notice to Appellant upon the Address of Appellant at Hingne Khurd, Pune-411051 and called upon the Appellant to complete the said alleged work within next 8 days. Respondent sent the notice with malicious intention on Dt.18/07/2016 i.e. in heavy rainy season with the knowledge that in the said season the alleged work would not be completed.

7. Thereafter, the Respondent had filed the said alleged Complaint on Dt. 16/08/2016 before the District Commission Satara. That, it is material to note that Appellant has