Karnataka State Commission Remands Matter Back To District Commission Owing To Discrepancies, Suggests Appointment Of Assessor By District Commission For Inspection

Brief Facts:

Mr Chandrakanath (“Complainant”) engaged the Respondents for the construction of the 2nd floor on the existing building owned by the Complainants. An agreement was entered into, stipulating the handover of a habitable house within 5 months from the date of the agreement, subject to unforeseeable circumstances and payment of the entire amount by the Complainant.

The Respondents received the entire payment from the Complainant. However, they failed to finish the construction. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysuru, Karnataka (“District Commission”). The District Commission directed the Respondents to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- to the Complainant as damages, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation costs.

Dissatisfied by the order of the District Commission, the Respondents filed an appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (“State Commission”). They contended that a complaint notice was not served to them which led to an ex-parte hearing against them.

Observations of the Commission:

The State Commission observed that despite the Complainant's payment of Rs. 9,60,000/- to the Respondents as per the construction agreement, the Respondents failed to fulfil their obligations. The signatures of the Respondents on the construction agreement matched those on the receipts, indicating receipt of the full amount. However, the District Commission mistakenly recorded the receipt as Rs. 8,10,000/-. The Respondents received payments totalling Rs. 9,60,000/- on different dates, yet they abandoned the construction work despite negotiations.

In response to a legal notice, the Respondents requested additional payment for exceeding measurements on the 2nd floor. The Complainant enlisted a Civil Engineer to inspect, who confirmed the area to be 5.5 squares and estimated pending construction costs at Rs. 3,06,200/-. The District Commission proceeded with the case after the Respondents failed to respond to notices, considering affidavit evidence and the engineer's report.

However, the State Commission noted certain discrepancies. While the Respondents contested the area measurements, the engineer's report conflicted with the Complainant's statement regarding an additional payment for the increased area. The State Commission felt that if the District Commission could have appointed its own Commissioner for on-site inspection, the issue could be clarified.

Consequently, the State Commission allowed the Respondents an opportunity to contest the case, bearing a cost of Rs. 10,000/- and remanded the matter to the District Commission for reconsideration within three months. Additionally, the Respondents were directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the Complainant for contesting the case.

Case Title: Chandrakumar and Anr. vs Chandrakanth Kembhavi

Case No.: Appeal No. 1959/2023