News Citation : 2026 LN (CGSCDRC) 4
January 16, 2026 : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has partly allowed an appeal filed by Rajkishore Dani in a long-running house construction dispute with Smt. Minakshi Sharma, modifying the compensation amount awarded by the District Commission in Durg.
The order was pronounced on 16 January 2026 in Appeal No. FA/18/833, arising out of a complaint filed in 2015 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Durg.
The dispute relates to construction work on a residential property owned by Minakshi Sharma at Junwani, Bhilai. According to the record, Sharma had awarded the construction contract to Rajkishore Dani for building a house over 1503 square feet. The estimated cost for the project was fixed at ₹20.70 lakh.
Sharma alleged that she had paid ₹13.89 lakh to the contractor by January 2014. However, she claimed that the builder stopped work in February 2014 and demanded additional payment before completing the remaining construction. She further contended that the value of the work actually executed was far less than the amount paid and that she was forced to engage another contractor to complete the unfinished structure.
The builder, on the other hand, argued that the work was carried out as per the agreement and payment schedule. He maintained that there was no deficiency in service and blamed the dispute on delayed payments and rising material costs. He also contended that the matter was civil in nature and beyond the jurisdiction of the consumer forum.
The matter has seen multiple rounds of litigation. The District Commission initially passed an order in favour of the complainant. The builder challenged it before the State Commission. At one stage, the matter was remanded for reconsideration. Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that it involved a civil dispute. That order was challenged before the National Commission, which remitted the matter back to the State Commission for fresh adjudication on merits.
After examining the documentary evidence, including the construction estimate, approved building plan and valuation reports, the State Commission found that the District Commission had committed an error in calculating the value of the work done.
The District Commission had assessed the value of construction at ₹7,33,032 and concluded that the builder had received ₹6,55,968 in excess. However, the State Commission noted that a valuation report prepared by Engineer Ajay S. Nagle assessed the executed work at ₹7,41,675.
Based on this corrected figure, the Commission recalculated the excess amount received by the builder. Since ₹13,89,000 had been paid and the value of work was ₹7,41,675, the excess amount came to ₹6,47,325.
The Commission held that this excess retention amounted to deficiency in service. However, it modified the District Commission’s order to reflect the corrected computation.
The appeal was partly allowed. The order dated 31 July 2018 passed by the District Commission was modified to the extent of the recalculated excess amount. The ruling underscores that consumer fora can adjudicate disputes arising from construction contracts when allegations of deficiency in service are involved, even if contractual issues are also present.
