Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, being penal in nature, can only be invoked in cases of clear and willful non-compliance with a Commission's order, not in instances of factual disputes or administrative delays.

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

EA/78/2025

In

CC/52/2023

Amit Dhiman & Ors. Vs. Pritish Malik & Ors.

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI PRESIDENT

PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER

PRESENT : Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the applicants/OPs (on V.C)

Sh. Sachit Khurana, Advocate for the non-applicants/Complainants.

Dated: 17.04.2026

ORDER

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

1. Briefly stated, the complainants filed before this Commission regarding disputes relating to the quality of construction and materials used in the house building in question. Vide order dated 07.03.2024, this Hon’ble Commission directed the office of the Chief Engineer, UT Chandigarh to conduct an inspection of the said house building and submit a report regarding its current status and structural aspects. It is alleged by the applicants that although the complainants produced a report of their own alleged expert, the same was prepared without associating the OPs, without prior intimation to this Commission, and without any supporting affidavit. The applicants further contend that the complainants have carried out further construction through other persons, completed the house and are presently residing therein, while suppressing this fact before the Commission. Despite the lapse of more than since the passing of the one year and three months order dated 07.03.2024, the inspection has not been conducted as the complainants/Judgment Debtors allegedly created obstacles and prevented the concerned officials from carrying out the inspection, resulting in delay in disposal of the complaint which has been pending for about two years. Hence, the present application has been filed seeking action against the complainants/JDs for non-compliance of the order dated 07.03.2024 under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and for ensuring compliance of the said order.

2. The complainants have opposed the present application filed under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the ground that it is misconceived, not maintainable and has been filed only to harass them. It is asserted that the applicant is simultaneously pursuing similar allegations in a civil suit titled Amit Dhiman Vs. Pritish Malik and Anr . pending before the Court of Sh.Ajay Kumar, CJ (JD), Chandigarh for 23.09.2025, thereby misusing the legal process. It is also asserted that MA No. 251 of 2025 filed by the complainants for placing on record the inspection report dated 29.04.2024 has already been allowed (Annexure CB), which clarifies that the order dated 07.03.2024 was limited to verification of the construction/completion status of House No. 403, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh and did not extend to measurements as alleged by the OP. The complainants approached this Commission because the OP accepted Rs.70,70,000/- along with Rs.1,84,719/- as GST, yet left the construction midway and produced bills of only about Rs.7,00,000/-, clearly demonstrating deficiency in service; the remaining finishing work was later completed by the complainants as already explained in the complaint. The complainants deny having obstructed any inspection and contend that the OP is attempting to manipulate the record through contradictory reports, including the letter dated 07.08.2024 referring to a visit on 04.04.2024, whereas the complainant was not in Chandigarh on that date but was in Gurugram, Haryana attending a family “Kirya,” which can be proved. It is further pointed out that the message dated 14.05.2024 sent by counsel for the OP proposing inspection on 16.05.2024 for taking measurements as per the approved pla