STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI APPEAL NO.A/22/550 (Arising out of the order dated 21/09/2021 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission Raigad in consumer complaint no.CC/18/218)

Mr.Vinayak Shripat Jagde R/o.Flat no.B-301, Shree Shantiniketan …..Appellant/ Org.

‘C’ CHS Ltd. Plot no.12A, Sector 8 complainant Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210 Versus Mr.Mahendra Babu Padvekar ……Respondent/org.OP At Post Bharne, Taluka Khed District Ratnagiri BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member Adv Rajkumar Jagtap for appellant.

PRESENT:

None present for respondent FINAL ORDER (Dt.15/04/2026)

Per Hon’ble Member Mr.Vijay C.Premchandani

1. The present appeal is preferred by the original complainant u/sec.41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 21/09/2021 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Raigad at Alibag in consumer complaint no.CC/21/218.

FACTUAL MATRIX :-

2. The appellant has contended in the appeal memo that he had given contract of construction of his house to the respondent for the total consideration of Rs.10 lakhs. It was decided between the appellant and the respondent that the respondent will construct the house as per the drawing given by the appellant and assured the respondent to complete the construction work of the house and will give possession of the house at the time of Diwali 2019. The appellant paid a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as part consideration to the respondent and the respondent was to construct Plinth, Jota, Bims, PCC and construction of wall in Jambha stone but the respondent demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, the appellant paid the said amount till 10/06/2019 to the respondent but the respondent failed to complete the construction work of the house as agreed by the respondent. The appellant has paid total consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- to the respondent by way of cheques and RTG transfers. The respondent avoided to complete the construction work of the appellant’s house. Therefore, appellant issued a legal notice dated 04/06/2021 and on 11/06/2021 to the respondent and thereby called upon him to complete the construction of his house but respondent refused to accept the said notice. The appellant had filed the original consumer complaint no.CC/21/218 and it was kept for hearing on admission. After hearing on admission, the Ld.District Consumer Commission has passed an order stating the reason that there is contract of personal service between the parties. Therefore, the dispute arisen between the parties is not a consumer dispute and the complaint is not coming under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the consumer complaint was dismissed.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 21/09/2021 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission in the aforesaid consumer complaint, the present appeal is preferred on the ground that the Ld.District Consumer Commission has failed to consider the aspect that the payment has been made in favour of the respondent towards the construction of the house by way of cheques and RTGS. The Ld.District Consumer Commission has also failed to consider the aspect that there is oral agreement between the appellant and respondent for construction of the house. The Ld.District Consumer Commission has committed an error while passing an order by interpreting the words, ‘Contract of Personal Service’ and ‘Contract for Personal Service’. The contract for personal service is recognized as service under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Therefore, the appellant has prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the consumer complaint be remanded back for fresh hearing and for proper adjudication.

4. The notice was issued to the respondent. The respondent is served with the notice but failed to appear as on 25/04/2025. Therefore, the present appeal was proceeded ex-parte against the respondent. Heard learned advocate for the appellant on the point of admission of appeal. Perused the a