Chhattisgarh Consumer Commission Upholds ₹60,000 Compensation in House Construction Dispute

News Citation : 2026 LN (CGSCDRC) 21

March 03, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal filed by a homeowner seeking higher compensation in a dispute over incomplete house construction, upholding the earlier order of the district consumer commission that had awarded limited compensation.

According to the order dated March 3, 2026, the appeal was filed by D. Gitanjali Dora against contractor Devendra Deshmukh under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Dora had challenged the May 22, 2025 order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Durg, which had partly allowed her complaint and granted compensation of ₹60,000 for deficiency in service.

The dispute arose from an agreement dated October 22, 2021, under which the contractor undertook to construct a house on Dora’s 450-square-foot residential plot in village Bodega, Durg district, for a total cost of ₹3.5 lakh. As per the agreement, Dora paid ₹2 lakh initially and the remaining amount was to be paid in instalments. She later paid ₹50,000 in December 2021 and ₹40,000 in April 2022, bringing the total payment to ₹2.9 lakh.

Dora alleged that after receiving the payments, the contractor demanded an additional ₹80,000 beyond the agreed construction cost. When she refused to pay the extra amount, the contractor allegedly stopped the construction work after completing only part of the structure, including the roof slab and some walls. She claimed this forced her to continue living in rented accommodation and caused financial and mental hardship. On these grounds, she sought compensation of ₹1 lakh, refund of ₹2.9 lakh already paid, and litigation costs.

However, the contractor contested these claims and argued that the homeowner had expanded the construction beyond the originally agreed specifications. According to the contractor, the approved building plan was for construction over about 400 square feet on the ground floor and a small room on the first floor. Instead, Dora allegedly expanded the project to about 700 square feet, including additional rooms, a kitchen, and a bathroom, which increased the cost of construction. The contractor also stated that construction work worth around ₹3.2 lakh had already been completed and that Dora still owed approximately ₹30,000.

After examining the documents and submissions, the State Commission noted that both parties acknowledged the payment of ₹2.9 lakh and the existence of the construction agreement. However, the Commission found that there was no commissioner’s inspection report or technical assessment to determine the exact extent of construction completed relative to the payment made. Without such evidence, the Commission said it was not possible to accurately determine the proportion of work completed.

The Commission further observed that the District Commission had already considered the material on record and granted ₹60,000 as estimated compensation for deficiency in service arising from incomplete construction. It held that the district forum’s reasoning was legally sound and did not warrant interference at the appellate stage.

Accordingly, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and affirmed the earlier order of the District Commission. The Commission also directed that both parties would bear their own costs in the appeal proceedings.

Case Reference : Appeal No. SC/22/FA/337/2025 – D. Gitanjali Dora vs. Devendra Deshmukh