State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs.Christy Nachiar D/O. Choundra ... vs N B Anitha C/O. M/S Harshana Designers on 30 December, 2025
1
IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, CHENNAI.
Present: Hon'ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT
F.A. No. 843 of 2025
(Against the order passed in C.C. No.144 of 2024 dated 10.10.2024 on
the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Tiruvallur).
Tuesday, the 30th day of December 2025
Mrs. Christy Nachiar
43, Moogambigai Nagar,
Avadi, Chennai- 600 055. .. Appellant/
Complainant
- Vs -
1. Mrs. N.B.Anitha
W/o. Balaji
M/s. Harshana Designer
No.57/29 Sathyamoorthi Street
Kalpalayam, Kolathur,
Chennai-600 099.
2. Mr. Balaji
No.57/29 Sathyamoorthi Street
Kalpalayam, Kolathur,
Chennai-600 099. .. Respondents/
Opposite parties
For the Appellant/Complainant : Party-in-person
Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite parties: M/s. R. Govindasamy
This appeal came before us for final hearing on 27.10.2025 and
on hearing the arguments of the Appellant in person and on perusing
the materials on record, this Commission made the following
2
ORDER
R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed as against the order dated 10.10.2024 passed in C.C. No.144 of 2024, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvallur, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant herein.
2. The case of the complainant as given in the complaint filed before the District Commission is as follows:-
The Complainant planned to construct a residential house for her own use, in the plot owned by her at No.43 Moogambigai Nagar, Vellanoor, Avadi, Chennai-55. Hence, she approached the 2nd opposite party, who claimed himself as a civil engineer. The 1st opposite party is the Proprietor of M/s.Harshana Designer Company, under which the 1st opposite party is undertaking the construction projects. Based on the discussion had by the complainant with the 2 nd opposite party, the 1st opposite party handed over the construction agreement dated 26.01.2023 signed by her to the complainant. The 1st opposite party also shared the house plan documents dated 22.01.2023 and expressed their willingness to construct a house for the complainant. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 3 28.01.2023 through NEFT online transaction and paid another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- through IMPS on 15.02.2023 to the account of the 1 st opposite party. Thus, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the 1st opposite party. The complainant also made the following online payments, as advised by the 2nd opposite party:
1. Rs.3,800/- on 23.01.2023 to Manikandan for JCB earthwork charges
2. Rs.16,500/- on 28.01.2023 to Murugan Depot for store hut.
3. Rs.30,850/- dated 31.01.2023 to Masthan for borewell
4. Rs.25,950/- dated 14.02.2023 to SMK Enterprises for borewell motor pumpset and Rs.1500/- by cash for borewell installation/labour charges for fitting the motor.
5. Rs.5391/- dated 29.01.2023 to the 2nd opposite party in cash for Trubore piping estimate.
Thus, the complainant had paid a total amount of Rs.83,991/-. Thereafter, the 2nd opposite party marked the pillars incorrectly in the construction site by holding the building plan document upside down with entrance of the home at the backyard and also excavated earth for foundation pillars covering the neighbouring plot. Since his measurements on site were not in-line with the layout plan, the complainant questioned the same but no proper reply was given by the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant preferred to apply for plot survey to ensure correct site boundaries from the Government 4 authorities and hence applied for a land survey on 01.03.2023. Whileso, the 2nd opposite party deferred to continue with the construction project and the complainant was shocked to receive a cheque for Rs.1,99,474/- from the 2nd opposite party, as refund of the amount paid by him. The 2nd opposite party also shared few inappropriate slips as proof for the balance amount of Rs.2,00,526/-, for the expenses incurred by him towards the construction material and labour charges. But the fact remains that no construction work was carried out in the site, except wrong excavation of earth for foundation pit, which was also closed by the complainant by paying additional cost. The opposite parties had manipulated the documents in order to collect excess amount from the complainant, by producing fake slips and without proper bills/receipts for any of the amount claimed, in order to cheat the complainant in an unfair means. The vendor, who supplied the construction materials ensured that he delivered materials like M- sand and Jally in multiples of 3 units and not 4.5 units as billed by the opposite parties with Rs.5000/- excess for each load of material. Moreover, an amount of Rs.5471/- has also been collected from the complainant for the building elevation document with watermark of 'Ultra Tech Cement' freely unloading from the company website, which was not even suitable for the building plan document. Similarly, 5 inappropriate charges of Rs.5000/- was collected for plan and design documents. The labour charges of Rs.8000/- for JCB and Rs.1500/- for motor fixing work, has been collected, for which the complainant had already paid Rs.3800/- for JCB on 23.01.2023 and Rs.1500/- by cash for motor fixing. From the beginning, the intention of both the opposite parties was to cheat the complainant. They did not even bother to get the agreement signed by the complainant, though she wanted the agreement to be in her name for loan purposes, rather, they were only interested in collecting the amount and make the complainant to pay for each and every expense. Thus, the malafide act of the opposite parties had caused monetary loss and mental agony to the complainant, for no fault of her. Therefore, it is clear that the opposite parties had cheated the complainant by giving false assurance and had received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and had not refunded the appropriate amount to the complainant by deducting unfair material charges, by producing unacceptable estimate/slips/rough estimate of excess amount, without producing proper bills or receipts from the vendors and their company, without appropriate seal. There is no GST detail in any of the receipts shared with the complainant. The opposite parties had received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- but has not produced appropriate bills and receipts for their claimed expenses of 6 Rs.2,00,526/-. Thus, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a complaint seeking the following directions to the opposite party,
1) To share appropriate bills with the correct amount for the building material and refund the excess amount of Rs.65,526/- paid by the complainant with interest @ 15% p.a., from the date of respective deposits till the date of realization of the amount;
2) To pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, harassment, undue hardships suffered by the complainant; and
3) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
3. The opposite parties were set ex-parte before the District Commission for non-filing of written version within the mandatory period as per the statue.
4. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, along with proof affidavit 8 documents were filed, which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A8.
5. The District Commission, relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in C.A.No.7289 of 2009 in the case of Chairman & 7 Managing Director,C.M.D City Union Bank Limited Vs. R.Chandramohan dated 27.03.2023, had dismissed the complaint on two grounds.
Firstly, the agreement for construction of the house of the complainant has been entered only by the husband of the complainant with the 1st opposite party. The said construction agreement has not been registered. No Power of Attorney has been executed by her husband Mr.Y.Arockia Raj authorizing the complainant to file the present consumer complaint. In the said agreement, signature of the 1st opposite party is found on the first and the last pages alone. And the signature of the complainant is found on the first page alone, which creates huge doubt about the veracity of the document. Further, in the complaint it has been stated by the complainant that in the agreement no signature from the complainant was received by the opposite parties. Though the complainant had raised various allegations against the opposite parties, the District Commission without going into the merits of the case, has come to a conclusion that the complainant is not entitled to file the present complaint since she has not obtained Power of Attorney from her husband Mr.Y.Arockia Raj, who is the holder of the Agreement.
Secondly, since the case of the complainant involves highly disputed question of facts, which cannot be decided by the Consumer 8 Forum in summary nature, dismissed the complaint by granting liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate civil forum.
6. Against the dismissal order, the complainant filed a Review petition in CMP No.105 of 2024 in C.C.No.144 of 2024 before the District Commission, seeking entirely different prayers, from what was sought in the complaint. Hence, the District Commission had concluded that since the complainant has come up with new reliefs, the review petition cannot be entertained and only when there is an error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order, a review petition could be filed and thus dismissed the Review petition by order dated 28.01.2025. Thereafter, the complainant has filed the present appeal as against the dismissal order dated 10.10.2024 passed in the complaint in C.C.No.144 of 2024.
7. The main submission of the appellant/complainant is that her husband Mr.Y.Arockia Raj and the appellant/complainant are joint owners of the property on which the construction services were availed from the 1st opposite party. Though the 2nd opposite party claims to be a civil engineer, the earth evacuation work done by him for foundation pit proved that he is a fraudulent contractor. Since the 2 nd opposite party marked the foundation pillars incorrectly covering the 9 neighbouring plot, in order to ensure correct site boundaries, the complainant applied for formal land survey from the Government Authorities, at additional cost. Suddenly, the 2 nd opposite party deferred to continue with the construction project. The opposite parties by their various deceptive unfair trade practices have collected amount from the appellant/complainant without any invoice of the company and had refused to refund the amount. The 1st opposite party has agreed for construction of the residential project but has not constructed the house. However, has collected money and refused to refund the amount to the appellant/complainant, which has lead to monetary loss and mental agony to the appellant/complainant and hence she is eligible to claim compensation. The respondents/opposite parties have refunded only a sum of Rs.1,99,474/- deducting a sum of Rs.2,00,526/- as expenses incurred by the 2 nd opposite party in the house site. The supportive documents produced by the 2nd opposite party towards the expenses incurred clearly reveals that there are manipulation of quantities, fabrication of entries and fake invoices, in order to collect excess amount from the appellant/complainant. Due to the service deficiency caused by the respondents/opposite parties, this Consumer Commission is the most appropriate forum under various Sections of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 safeguarding the 10 consumer rights particularly, under section 2(9) of the Act. The appellant/ complainant being a professional demanding high utilization of her time at job will not be able to proceed parallel legal proceedings, leading to permanent job loss and hence sought to allow the present appeal.
8. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondents/opposite parties that the complaint/appeal is not maintainable as there is no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondents 1&2/opposite parties 1&2. The original construction agreement was executed between the husband of the appellant/complainant Mr.Arockiaraj and the 1 st respondent. It is well settled legal position that a party without privity of contract with the service provider does not qualify as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In the present case, the appellant/complainant is not a signatory to the agreement. Therefore, the District Commission has correctly observed that the complainant has not provided a Power of Attorney to file the complaint on behalf of her husband, raising significant doubts about the maintainability of the complaint. It is the further submission of the counsel for the respondents/opposite parties that the appellant/complainant is not a 'consumer' as per Section 2(7) 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 because the construction service was likely for commercial purposes or investment and not solely for earning a livelihood through self-employment. Further, considering the complex nature of allegations, which included claims related to RERA violations, criminal offences and significant monetary losses that cannot be adjudicated in a summary manner by a consumer forum and hence the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint. The contract was not unfair and all actions were as per the mutually agreed terms and conditions. There is neither any violation of consumer rights nor deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Keeping in mind the submissions made by the appellant/ complainant in person and the learned counsel for the respondents/ opposite parties, I have carefully gone through the entire material available on records.
10. With regard to the first ground, this Commission finds no ambiguity whatsoever in holding that the appellant/complainant, despite not being the signatory to the unregistered construction agreement, squarely, indisputably and unequivocally falls within the statutory ambit of a 'consumer' as envisaged under Section 2(7) of the 12 Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Though no Power of Attorney has been given by Mr.Y.Arockiya Raj, husband of the complainant, it should be borne in mind that the appellant/complainant is the ultimate beneficiary of the alleged construction to be done by the respondents/opposite parties. Moreover, the appellant/complainant cannot be a third party, who has connection with the plot and the proposed house site. Therefore, the complainant will fall within the purview of a consumer. The Act by design, adopts a broader more purposive and socially responsive definition, one that recognizes not only the formal executants of an agreement but also those individuals who are the actual users, beneficiaries and recipients of the underlying service. Therefore, the complainant squarely falls within the definition of the consumer. The object of Consumer Commission is to give speedy remedy. The District Commission has dismissed the complaint mainly on the ground that the case on hand requires elaborate evidence and since the consumer proceedings being summary in nature, the present complaint cannot be adjudicated and had directed the complainant to approach the civil forum. In support of this finding, the District Commission has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman & Managing Director, C.M.D City Union Bank Limited vs. R. Chandramohan in C.A.No.7289 of 2009 dated 13 27.03.2023. However, the Supreme Court, in a long and unbroken line of authoritative precedents had made it clear that disputes relating to construction services, whether they involve inflated billing, defective execution, wrongful design, abandoned commitments, deviation from sanctioned plans and fraudulent charge levying practices, fall squarely and unambiguously within the jurisdiction of Consumer Commission. In the present case, the allegations raised by the appellant/complainant are about the fradulent charge-levying practices of the respondents/ opposite parties. When there is an allegation of fraud, naturally the District Commission can decide the issue involved in this case.
So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the factual substratum of the present dispute clearly shows the conduct of the respondents/opposite parties. The opposite parties had commenced the construction project in a manner that betrays a startling lack of technical proficiency but also a reckless disregard for even the most rudimentary principles of civil engineering, by marking the site holding the approved building plan upside down and transforming a north facing site into a south facing one. It is the contention of the complainant that she had already paid Rs.3800/- towards JCB excavation work and Rs.1500/- for motor fixing charges, which payments are duly supported by receipts on record. But, the opposite 14 parties had inserted these charges into their self-serving expense statement, marked as Ex.A5, by inflating the JCB charges to Rs.8000/- and also including the motor fixing charge of Rs.1500/-. It is the further contention of the appellant/complainant that the collection of Rs.5471/- towards elevation charges is nothing but a deliberate fraud committed by the respondents/opposite parties. The said elevation drawing is not a customised architectural, professional design prepared by an architect but is a freely downloaded image directly from the Ultratech Cement website. In the light of the above submissions, this Commission finds that there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents/ opposite parties and hence the right of the appellant/ complainant stands firmly vindicated.
11. Above all, this Commission is of the opinion that though notice has been served on the opposite parties and vakalat has been filed, there is no further representation by the opposite parties either in person or through counsel before the District Commission. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the respondents/ opposite parties appeared and filed the written arguments before this Commission, merely denying the allegations raised by the complainant. But, filing of written arguments is not sufficient, 15 particularly in the absence of filing of written version or any other documents produced as exhibits. It is also seen that the relief sought by the appellant in the present appeal appears to be beyond the scope of relief and are completely different from the prayer sought as a complainant before the District Commission. Despite the fact that the Review Petition seeking different prayer has been dismissed by the District Commission, since there is no error apparent on the face of the record, the conduct of the appellant/complainant in proceeding with the appeal for the same expanded prayer and agitating the points on the extended scope is absolutely impermissible, leaving this Commission only to take adverse note of the same. It is well settled that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and the appellate authority cannot grant any relief beyond the prayers sought in the original consumer complaint. The scope of appeal is confined to examining the correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned order passed by the District Commission within the frame work of the pleadings and reliefs originally claimed. Any prayer raised in the appeal, which is inconsistent with, or in excess of, the reliefs thus sought before the District Commission is not maintainable in law. The appellant is not entitled to seek new or enlarged reliefs at the appellate stage, as the same would prejudice the opposite parties and violate principles of 16 natural justice. Accordingly, the prayer in the present appeal to the extent it seeks reliefs beyond those prayed for in the consumer complaint, is not maintainable in law and deserves to be dismissed.
However, upon diligent and meticulous thorough scrutiny of the entire evidentiary record, this Commission finds itself irresistibly compelled to exercise its appellate jurisdiction and consider the reliefs sought for by the complainant in the complaint, which would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the respondents/ opposite parties are directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.65,526/- paid by the complainant with interest @ 9% from the date of payment till the date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused by the opposite parties along with a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
12. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part and the order dated 10.10.2024 passed in C.C. No.144 of 2024, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvallur, is set aside. The opposite parties are directed to share the appropriate bills with the correct amount for the building materials used and to refund the excess amount of Rs.65,526/- paid by the complainant with interest at the rate of 17 9% per annum from the date of such payment till the date of realization of the amount and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant along with a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. No order as to costs. Consequently, the complaint is allowed.
-Sd-
R.SUBBIAH PRESIDENT Index : Yes/ No AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/December/2025 18