ORDER

For the Respondent              Mr Kumar Vignesh Ram, Advocate

ORDER

PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA

1.     This first appeal under section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, ‘the Act’) challenges the order dated 27.05.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U T, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Complaint Case no.57 of 2019 partly allowing the complaint with cost and prays for setting aside the impugned order and for any other order(s) as deemed fit.

2.     Briefly put, the relevant facts of the case are that the appellants had entered into a contract with the respondent on 18.09.2018 for construction of a house located at 7914, Block H, Aero City, SAS Nagar (Mohali) at the rate of Rs.1600/- per sq ft. The house was to comprise of Ground and First floor and Mumti.  Payments were to be made on stage by stage construction basis. The respondent approached the State Commission alleging that he had paid Rs.27 lakh to the appellant whereas the quantum of work executed was far less and as per the assessment done privately through a contractor, the work done was assessed to be equivalent to Rs.16,77,629/-. He therefore stopped the work and sought refund of the excess amount of Rs.10,22,371/- with interest, compensation for mental agony, harassment, litigation expenses etc. The State Commission appointed a retired Chief Engineer as a Local Commissioner who submitted his report dated 19.02.2020 and reported that only 45 to 50% of brick work and RCC structure of the building had been completed and sanitary and electrical work had not been done. The estimated cost of the work done was worked out to Rs.15,04,630/-. The quality of the construction was stated to be broadly as per the specification. The State Commission has held that the respondent was right in seeking bills from the appellant towards the work done and that denial of the same amounted to deficiency in service since the appellant was obliged to provide any records or bills pertaining to construction to the complainant even though it was not specifically recorded in the Agreement. The State Commission’s orders, on contest, directed the OPs to jointly and severally refund Rs.11,95,370/- with 12% per annum interest from the date of filing of the complaint within 30 days of the order failing which, with 15% interest till realisation along with Rs.50,000/- in lumpsum for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation within 30 days failing which, with interest @ 9% till realisation. This order is impugned before us.

3.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given our thoughtful consideration to the material on record.

4.     It is the contention of the appellant that the parties were bound by the contract dated 18.09.2018 and that based on the assessment obtained by the respondent from a third party, the respondent wrongly terminated the contract and sought refund of Rs.10,22,371/-. It was stated that the appellant had overcharged and collected money in excess. It was contended by the appellant that the contract stipulated the liability of the respondent to pay @ Rs.1600/- per sq ft and that since the construction of 3928 sq ft had been completed, the respondent owed the appellant Rs.62,84,800/-.

5.      The State Commission’s finding is as under:

8. ……………..from bare perusal of the report aforesaid, it is evident that though the material in the building and structure raised is as per the required specifications, yet, the value of the work which has been done at the site comes to Rs.15,04,630/- only, whereas, on the other hand, the opposite parties have already received an amount of Rs.27 lacs from the complainant, which act clearly amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice. In our considered opinion since the complainant has himself agreed to supersede his assessment report attached with the main complaint by the report of the Local Commissioner and at the same time, not even an