The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has set aside the dismissal of a homeowner’s complaint against a renovation contractor and directed him to pay ₹1.6 lakh for leaving the work incomplete despite receiving ₹5.2 lakh out of the agreed ₹6 lakh contract amount.
The commission, comprising president justice Raj Shekhar Attri and member Preetinder Singh, held that the contractor was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The order was pronounced on July 20.
The case was filed by Vinay Kumar Kapoor, owner of a house in Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. He had engaged Narinder Chohan to undertake renovation and construction work on the ground floor for ₹6 lakh, including labour and material. The work was to be completed by May 31, 2021. Kapoor handed over possession of the house in March 2021 and paid ₹5.2 lakh through NEFT, but alleged that several works remained unfinished even after the deadline.
According to the complaint, Kapoor was subsequently forced to engage another contractor and incurred additional expenditure of around ₹3 lakh to complete the remaining work.
The District Consumer Commission-II had dismissed his complaint in August 2025, observing that Kapoor had continued making payments even after the stipulated completion date, which indicated that the work had substantially been completed. It also noted that he failed to produce photographs, videos or other cogent documentary evidence to establish that the work remained incomplete.
{{/usCountry}}The District Consumer Commission-II had dismissed his complaint in August 2025, observing that Kapoor had continued making payments even after the stipulated completion date, which indicated that the work had substantially been completed. It also noted that he failed to produce photographs, videos or other cogent documentary evidence to establish that the work remained incomplete.
{{/usCountry}}However, while hearing Kapoor’s appeal, the State Commission relied on WhatsApp conversations between the parties that had subsequently been brought on record as additional evidence.
The commission noted that the messages showed that the renovation remained incomplete well after May 31, 2021. In July 2021, the contractor admitted that the toilet seat was yet to be installed and acknowledged that one of the agreed washrooms could not be constructed. The correspondence also showed pending electrical, carpentry, sanitary and kitchen work.
The commission further noted that the contractor had agreed to bear one month’s house rent because of the delay and allow it to be adjusted against the contract amount.
A November 10, 2021, WhatsApp message also played a crucial role in the commission’s findings. In the message, the contractor explained that he had been unable to attend the renovation work as his father-in-law had been critically ill and subsequently died. The commission said this itself indicated that the renovation work was still continuing nearly six months after the contractual deadline.
“Merely because a person continues making payments during the execution of a construction contract cannot automatically lead to an inference that the work has been completed satisfactorily,” they observed.
The commission, however, did not accept Kapoor’s entire claim of ₹3 lakh spent on completing the work. It found formal invoices totalling ₹1,00,173 to be sufficiently supported. Of another ₹69,500 claimed on the basis of private receipts, it accepted 40 per cent, amounting to ₹27,800, citing lack of detailed particulars and corroboration.
The commission consequently awarded ₹1.28 lakh towards the expenditure incurred in completing the unfinished renovation. It also awarded ₹25,000 as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and inconvenience, besides ₹15,000 towards litigation expenses.
The contractor has been directed to pay the amounts within 45 days of receiving a certified copy of the order. In case of default, the amount awarded towards completion expenses will carry 9% interest per annum from the date of the order, while compensation and litigation expenses will carry 9% interest from the date of default until payment.
The commission accordingly partly allowed the appeal and set aside the district commission’s August 2025 order.