Chhattisgarh Consumer Commission Dismisses Homebuyer’s Appeal Against Builder, Upholds District Forum Order

May 12, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal filed by a Raipur resident alleging deficiency in service by a builder and real estate agent in connection with the construction of a residential house, holding that the complainant failed to establish his claims and that the underlying agreement between the parties suffered from significant legal ambiguities.

The State Commission, while affirming the order of the District Consumer Commission, Raipur, ruled that the appellant could not prove that the builder had committed any deficiency in service under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The order was passed on 12 May 2026 in Appeal No. SC/22/FA/478/2025, titled Prabhat Sharma v. Pradeep Kumar Sharma.

The dispute arose from a transaction involving a 1,000 square foot plot situated in Raipur. According to the complainant, he entered into an agreement dated 24 August 2021 with the respondent for the construction of a house measuring approximately 800 square feet on the plot. The total value of the arrangement was stated to be ₹23.51 lakh. The complainant alleged that he had paid substantial amounts to the respondent but the construction work was not completed within the agreed time frame, compelling him to approach the consumer forum.

The complainant further relied on an inspection report prepared by an engineer, which allegedly assessed the value of the construction work completed at approximately ₹9.41 lakh. Based on this report, he argued that despite making substantial payments, the respondent had failed to carry out work proportionate to the money received and had therefore committed deficiency in service.

The respondent contested the allegations and supported the findings of the District Commission. During the appellate proceedings, the State Commission examined the sale deed, revenue records, construction agreement and other documents placed on record.

A key issue considered by the Commission was the legal nature of the transaction itself. The Commission noted that the respondent was not the owner of the land in question. The sale deed and revenue records showed that the land belonged to other individuals, while the respondent acted as a real estate agent. The Commission found that the documents created between the parties did not clearly establish the respondent’s authority as landowner or clarify the respective components of land cost and construction cost.

The Commission observed that the construction agreement had been executed even before the complainant formally purchased the land. According to the Commission, this sequence of events raised serious questions regarding the validity and enforceability of the arrangement. It held that the agreement was vague and lacked essential details regarding the valuation of the land and the actual construction cost.

In a significant observation, the Commission stated that the agreement between the parties was “not legally sustainable” and described it as an “unclear document” that could not be readily accepted as a valid contractual foundation for the consumer dispute. The Commission found that the documentary evidence failed to establish a legally enforceable builder-consumer relationship in the manner claimed by the appellant.

The Commission also scrutinised the payments allegedly made by the complainant. While the appellant argued that he had paid more than ₹21 lakh to the respondent, the Commission’s examination of the records indicated that only around ₹10.60 lakh in payments could be substantiated through the available documents. The Commission held that the complainant had not paid the entire contractual amount and therefore could not conclusively blame the respondent for non-completion of the construction work.

Referring to the principles governing consumer disputes under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Commission emphasised that a finding of deficiency in service requires clear proof that a service provider failed to perform contractual obligations despite the consumer fulfilling his own obligations. In the present case, the Commission found that such proof was lacking.

The appellate body ultimately concluded that the complainant had failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. It observed that the District Commission had already undertaken a detailed examination of the evidence and had reached a legally justified conclusion. Finding no error warranting interference, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and affirmed the District Commission’s order dated 28 July 2025.

The ruling highlights the importance of clear contractual documentation in real estate and construction-related transactions. It also serves as a reminder that consumer forums may decline relief where agreements are legally uncertain, ownership issues remain unresolved, or payment records do not fully support the claims made by the complainant. For homebuyers and property investors, the decision underscores the need to verify ownership, define construction obligations with precision and maintain complete payment records before initiating consumer litigation.

Case Reference : Appeal No. SC/22/FA/478/2025 Prabhat Sharma Vs. Pradeep Kumar Sharma