News Citation : 2026 LN (CGSCDRC) 13
February 17, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Raipur has partly allowed an appeal filed by Sudha Singh Raj in a long-running dispute with a private builder, setting aside an earlier district commission order and directing a fresh hearing with expert evaluation.
In its order pronounced on February 17, 2026, in Appeal No. SC/22/FA/175/2025, the State Commission found that the District Consumer Commission in Janjgir-Champa had dismissed the complaint without obtaining crucial technical evidence, including an expert report on the construction work.
Sudha Singh Raj had challenged the district commission’s order dated February 27, 2025, which had rejected her complaint against Dhirendra Bajpai and another party linked to a real estate firm. According to the case record, Raj had purchased Plot No. E-228, measuring 787.63 square feet, and alleged that despite making substantial payments towards land and house construction, the promised house was not completed within the agreed timeline.
She stated that she paid multiple installments between September 2021 and March 2024, including booking amounts, cheque payments, and additional sums allegedly demanded due to delays attributed to COVID-19 and rising construction material costs. An agreement was later executed on a ₹50 stamp paper, in which the builder reportedly undertook to complete a house valued at ₹28 lakh by May 30, 2024. Despite this, Raj claimed the construction remained incomplete, forcing her to approach the consumer forum for relief.
The opposite parties did not file a written statement before the district commission and were proceeded against ex parte. However, the district commission ultimately dismissed the complaint.
On appeal, Raj argued that the district commission failed to properly examine the evidence and did not consider appointing a technical expert to assess the status and quality of construction. She contended that the dismissal was legally flawed and overlooked material facts.
After reviewing the record, the State Commission observed that the district commission had not conducted a site inspection nor sought a commissioner’s report or expert opinion from a qualified civil engineer. The appellate body noted that without such technical evidence, it was not possible to conclusively determine whether there had been a deficiency in service or whether the builder had fulfilled obligations proportionate to the payments received.
The State Commission also pointed out that while the complainant had not produced all documentary proof, such as bank statements or affidavits of witnesses for certain cash payments, the district commission should have ensured a complete factual inquiry before dismissing the case.
Holding that the earlier order suffered from procedural lapses, the State Commission set aside the February 27, 2025 order and remanded the matter back to the District Consumer Commission for fresh adjudication on merits.
It directed the district commission to appoint a qualified civil engineer as commissioner to inspect the incomplete construction and submit an expert report. Both parties have been granted an opportunity to lead evidence. They have been directed to appear before the district commission on March 19, 2026, or the next working day.
The Commission clarified that each party will bear its own litigation costs at this stage.
The ruling underscores the importance of technical evaluation in real estate and construction-related consumer disputes, especially where allegations of incomplete work and deficiency of service hinge on factual assessment of the property.
Case Reference : Appeal No. SC/22/FA/175/2025: Sudha Singh Raj vs. Dhirendra Bajpai & Another
