Abandonment of contractual obligations in construction and providing substandard work constitutes a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act; documentary evidence of additional expenditure is admissible if corroborated by affidavits, despite minor technical omissions in billing.

PRESENT: -

Shri Amit Bhatt, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Tomal Lal Yadav, Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER

PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT

This appeal, under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called “the Act” for short), is preferred against order dated 18.08.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Durg (CG) (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short) in Complaint Case No.CC/2019/558 whereby the complaint was partly allowed directing the opposite party / appellant herein to pay the complainant/ respondent within 30 days Rs.2,45,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Forty Five Thousand) towards additional expenses the complainant/ respondent had to incur for construction of his house, failing which the said amount shall carry simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of order till the date of payment. Apart from that the opposite party / appellant was directed to pay the complainant/ respondent Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) as cost of litigation also.

In nutshell the facts of the case are that the complainant/ respondent entered into a written agreement with the opposite party / appellant, witnessed by others, for demolition of the complainant/ respondent’s kutcha house at Gautam Nagar, Bhilai, and construction of a one-storeyed pucca house. The agreed consideration was Rs.9,00,000/- @ Rs.995/- per sq. ft., with completion by 01.02.2019. Pursuant to the agreement, the complainant/ respondent paid the opposite party / appellant a total of Rs.5,48,000/- on different dates. The opposite party/ appellant commenced the work on 28.12.2018 by digging a septic tank pit but thereafter abandoned the construction work of complainant/ respondent’s house. Despite repeated calls and meetings on 20.01.2019 and 05.02.2019, the opposite party/ appellant categorically refused to continue construction, stating that he would not build the house.

The complainant lodged complaints at Police Station Supela and Police Station Jamul on 05.05.2019. The opposite party / appellant had constructed a substandard structure and bent roof, forcing the complainant/ respondent to demolish and rebuild the roof and walls through another contractor, Shri Santosh Mudliyar, at an additional cost of Rs.7,50,000/-. Further rectification due to defective roof casting cost another Rs.3,98,000/-. A registered legal notice dated 12.06.2019 was served on the opposite party/ appellant but no reply was received. Alleging the opposite party/ appellant’s conduct as deficiency in service and professional misconduct complaint was filed before the District Commission seeking reliefs of refund of Rs.5,48,000/- paid under the agreement, compensation of Rs.3,98,000/- for additional construction expenses i.e. a total sum of Rs.9,46,000/- with interest along with Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony, litigation costs etc.

The opposite party/ appellant in its written version except the admitted facts denied all the adverse allegations made against him and averred that the complainant/ respondent has presented false and misleading facts before the District Commission. The construction of the complainant/ respondent’s house was duly completed in accordance with the contract agreement, and possession was delivered. The complainant/ respondent is deliberately raising baseless objections to avoid payment of the remaining contract amount, which reflects mala fide intent. The complainant/ respondent has alleged that the remaining construction was carried out by another contractor, Shri Santosh Mudliyar, at a cost of Rs.7,50,000/-. However, cogent evidence like agreement, bills, vouchers, bank withdrawal records, or supporting documents have been produced to substantiate this claim. Similarly, no documentary evidence has been filed regarding the alleged expenditure of Rs.3,98,000/- or the photographs relied upon. The absence of such material evidence demons