State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sahedul Rehman vs Pratap Singh Aswal on 6 November, 2025
SC/5/A/27/2016 Sh. Sahedul Rehman 06.11.2025
Vs.
Sh. Pratap Singh Aswal
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND,
DEHRADUN
Date of Admission : 15.02.2016
Date of Final Hearing : 08.10.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 06.11.2025
SC/5/A/27/2016
Sh. Sahedul Rehman (Lambu Thekedar) S/o Sh. Alimuddeen
R/o Village Chorkatta Kurela, P.O. Bahadurganj
District Kisheanganj, Bihar
Presently resident at Dhondiyal Mohalla,
Jaiharikhal, District Pauri Garhwal - 246193
(Through: Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, Advocate)
.....Appellant
VERSUS
Sh. Pratap Singh Aswal S/o Late Sh. Girdhari Singh Aswal
"Aswal Bhawan", Jaiharkhal, District Pauri Garhwal
(Through: Sh. Abhishek Bahuguna, Advocate)
.....Respondent
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, President
Mr. C.M. Singh, Member
ORDER
(Per: Mr. C.M. Singh, Member):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 22.12.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pauri Garhwal (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 16 of 2013 styled as Sh. Pratap Singh Aswal vs. Sh. Sahedul 1 SC/5/A/27/2016 Sh. Sahedul Rehman 06.11.2025 Vs. Sh. Pratap Singh Aswal Rehman, wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed directing the opposite party to complete the incomplete works as per para No. 5 of the judgment and order within two months from the date of judgment and order, otherwise to pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- against the loss due to incomplete works together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of consumer complaint till the date of actual payment. The opposite party shall pay Rs. 10,000/- as mental & physical agony and litigation charges to the complainant in both the conditions.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant engaged a contractor for construction of house through written agreement executed on dated 04.11.2010 on two stamp paper of Rs. 100/- each. The total amount of agreement was Rs. 13,50,000/-, but the opposite party received total amount of Rs. 13,74,000/- from the complainant. Apart from this agreed amount, the contractor also asked the complainant to supply construction material for an amount of Rs. 1,91,771/-. Thus, the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 2,15,771/- over and above the agreed amount to the opposite party. The opposite party also borrowed an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh from the complainant, out of which Rs. 50,000/- was paid back. Upon entering on his newly constructed house on dated 28.01.2012, the complainant found that the construction work was done by the opposite party negligently and was incomplete as per contract. Consequently on dated 08.01.2013, the complainant issued a legal notice demanding an amount of Rs. 2,15,771/- to the opposite party. Again on dated 27.05.2013, the complainant sent another legal notice to the opposite party for recovery of the aforesaid amount, i.e. Rs. 2,15,771/-. However, the opposite party neither completed the incomplete construction work, nor paid the said amount to the complainant, hence the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint.
2 SC/5/A/27/2016 Sh. Sahedul Rehman 06.11.2025
Vs.
Sh. Pratap Singh Aswal
3. The opposite party in his written statement denied all the allegations made by the complainant. The opposite party further contended that the complainant had given an application dated 15.07.2013 to the SDM, Lansdowne stating that due to heavy rainfall on dated 16/17-06-2013, the courtyard and foundation of complainant's house has suffered damages. It was also mentioned that the road cutting work was undertaken by PWD on the other side of the complainant's house also posed a threat to the complainant's house. The opposite party further contended that it is evident that the alleged damages did not occur due to any deficiency on his part, rather due to natural calamity and landslide. Hence, no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party was committed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The District Commission after hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record, has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 22.12.2015 wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed in the above terms.
5. Having been aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the District Commission, an appeal has been preferred by the opposite party as appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the impugned judgment and order is beyond the jurisdiction and against the law and facts and also suffers from conjectures and surmises. The District Commission has committed an illegality by ignoring the law that the agreement on Rs. 100/- stamp paper was unregistered and was on deficient stamp paper was unenforceable. That the Commission below did not consider the pleadings of the respondent himself and has acted beside the pleadings, thereby caused grave injustice to the appellant. The District Commission has failed to exercise its discretion and ignored to refer the so called agreement deficiently stamped and unregistered to the competent authority 3 SC/5/A/27/2016 Sh. Sahedul Rehman 06.11.2025 Vs. Sh. Pratap Singh Aswal to impound the same; the impugned award suffers from gross impropriety as it has relied on the report submitted by the respondent - complainant himself. The District Commission has manifestly erred in law that the claim made before it was vexatious and the same was to be rejected with penalty for the same as matter before it was for the recovery of money and was beyond the competence of the Consumer Forum. The impugned award suffers from contradictions, gross impropriety that it has relied on the report of an unauthorised and unqualified persons not appointed by the District Commission to visit and submit the report and is perverse in law. The Commission below has miserable failed to apply its judicial mind on the fact and law that the so called agreement unregistered and deficiently stamped was never acted upon and was in fact violated by the respondent himself.
7. Learned counsel Sh. Pradeep Bartwal for the appellant and learned counsel Sh. Abhishek Bahuguna for respondent has appeared.
8. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
9. It is admitted fact that entering into an agreement with the appellant
- opposite party for construction of residential building, an agreement was executed between the respondent - complainant and the appellant on dated 04.11.2010 for total consideration of Rs. 13,50,000/-. That during the period of construction, the respondent made payment on time to time to the opposite party. That the respondent subsequently raised grievance regarding incomplete construction and use of sub-standard material. That due to heavy rainfall on dated 16/17-06-2013, the courtyard and foundation of the building of the respondent suffers damages and in this regard a 4 SC/5/A/27/2016 Sh. Sahedul Rehman 06.11.2025 Vs. Sh. Pratap Singh Aswal complaint was lodged before the SDM, Lansdowne on dated 15.07.2013 mentioning such damages.
10. Upon perusal of the record, it is observed that the primary contention raised by the appellant is that the damages to the respondent's house occurred due to heavy rainfall on dated 16/17-06-2013 and also due to road cutting work done by PWD on the other side of the same house. We have examined the respondent's letter dated 15.07.2013 (paper No. 42) addressed to SDM, Lansdowne wherein the respondent has reported the erosion / damages in the courtyard and foundation of his house caused by heavy rainfall and road-cutting activity by PWD. It is further noted that prior to this, the respondent had already informed the appellant about the deficiency in service in construction work by issuing a legal notice dated 08.01.2013 (paper Nos. 36 & 37).
11. We have also perused the site inspection report dated 17.05.2013 (paper No. 38) regarding the damages due to negligent work in the respondent's house by the appellant. Subsequently, the respondent issued another notice on dated 27.05.2013 (paper Nos. 39 & 40) requesting the completion of incomplete work and rectification of deficiencies. Thereafter, the appellant visited the respondent's house and prepared the settlement of account (paper No. 41). On examination of this settlement of account, it is noted that the appellant had acknowledged the liability of Rs. 1,94,406/- towards the cost value of service to the respondent and agreed to complete deficiency / damages of respondent's house before the start of rainy season. This settlement of account is duly signed / acknowledged by the appellant in the presence of witnesses on dated 30.05.2013. However, on further scrutiny of this settlement of account, we observed that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was shown as due towards the appellant for the amount borrowed from the respondent, which is beyond 5 SC/5/A/27/2016 Sh. Sahedul Rehman 06.11.2025 Vs. Sh. Pratap Singh Aswal the jurisdiction of this Commission. Therefore, net amount pertaining to construction work comes to Rs. 1,44,406/- which stands acknowledged by the appellant.
12. After the said site inspection report and settlement of account, the appellant failed to complete the remaining work and removing the deficiency despite having admitted the amount. Subsequent damages to the house due to heavy rainfall on dated 16/17-06-2013 and road cutting work does not absolve the appellant from his liability of completing the construction work and removing the deficiency particularly when the respondent had already informed the appellant regarding the deficiency / incomplete work prior to the occurrence of rainy season and road cutting work by PWD. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent had consistently raised objections and brought deficiency / incomplete work to the notice of the appellant well-before the incident of 16/17-06-2013 and road cutting work done by PWD. It is evident from the notice dated 08.01.2013, 27.05.2013 and settlement of account dated 30.05.2013.
13. After perusing the facts, evidence and material available on record, we are of the considered view that the respondent - complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,44,406/- in place of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards value of incomplete construction work from the appellant - opposite party. Thus, we find that the appeal deserves to be allowed in part and the impugned judgment and order is liable to be modified to above extent. No need to modify rest of the order.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 22.12.2015 passed by the District Commission, Pauri Garhwal is modified to such extent. The respondent - complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,44,406/- in place of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards value of incomplete 6 SC/5/A/27/2016 Sh. Sahedul Rehman 06.11.2025 Vs. Sh. Pratap Singh Aswal construction work from the appellant - opposite party. No modification in regard to other respect. No order as to costs of appeal.
15. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 /2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. The copy of this order be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information.
16. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) President (Mr. C.M. Singh) Member Pronounced on: 06.11.2025 7