DR. INDER JIT SINGH, MEMBER

1.         The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 01.10.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 177/2015 in which order dated 10.03.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 311/2013 was challenged.

2.         While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Parties(OPs) were Appellants before the State Commission and OPs before the District Forum and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 15.06.2016. Parties filed Written Arguments on 21.06.2021 & 12.04.2023 (Petitioners) and 10.05.2023 respectively. 

3.         Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that: -

The complainants purchased land admeasuring 2580 sq.ft. in Rishab Nagar, Kasarideeh, Durg.  The father of the complainant and and attorney Sh. Mohit Kumar Deshmukh entered into an oral agreement for construction of house at ground floor and first floor @900/- per sq.ft. on the plot of complainant and assured the delivery within three years’ time period on the condition of using high quality building construction material and providing the said house by using high quality material with all necessary fittings etc. in the entire house.  The complainant paid Rs.25,14,000/- to the OPs between 04.07.2008 to 17.12.2008 in compliance of the said oral agreement.  At the time of making the payment, it was verbally informed by the complainant that the built up area of house to be built would be 2600 sq.ft. comprising of ground floor and first floor, accordingly, the total construction cost of Rs.23,40,000/- and additional cost of Rs.1,74,000/- for false ceiling in entire house.  The OPs received Rs.15,14,000/- under receipts, before commencement of construction work.  Despite, receiving the payment, the OPs breached the terms of agreement and did not complete the construction work of house within the stipulated period of three years and material used in the work has been sub-standard and of highly inferior quality. Besides this, the OPs have reduced the width of road in front of plot as shown in the lay out provided to the complainant and constructed temple against the rules in said Rishab Nagar.  The complainant sent legal notice through his Advocate on 15.10.2011.  The OPs replied to the legal notice on 19.11.2011 stating therein that the cost of construction work of house being executed on the plot of complainant is Rs.47,00,000/- and construction was stopped as a result of non-payment of the said amount.  The complainant met with the OPs in their office and raised objection regarding the amount of Rs.47,00,000/- as cost of construction of house and told them to retain the cost of construction of house as per oral agreement at Rs.900/- per sq.ft. of built up area and asked the OPs to fulfil their promise/undertaking to remain firm on that which facts were admitted by OPs. However, the OPs stated that due to hike in building construction material cost will be paid by the complainant and after admission of the complainant, the construction work was started.  On the assurances by the OPs, the complainant paid Rs.7,00,000/- on 29.08.2012, over and above Rs.25,14,000/-, total comes to Rs.32,14,000/-, that the OPs would complete the construction within one year, by using high quality building material in construction, all furniture and other fittings, tiles, painting, polishing, false ceiling work, UPVC windows and Railing etc. Despite lapse of one year, the construction has not been completed.   Hence, filed complaint before the District Forum.

4.         Vide Order dated 10.03.2015 in the CC No.311/2013, the District Forum allowed complaint and directed the OPs to complete the construction work as per details given in para 8 of the complaint and hand over possession of said house to the complainant within one month against the amount already paid by the complainant, failing which, the cost estimated by the complainant i.e. Rs19,50,000/- to complete the said incomplete construction work shall be paid by the OP-1 and 2 jointly and severally to the complainant.  OPs-1 & 2 shall also pay jointly and severally Rs.10,000/-  to the complainant as cost of case.

5.         Aggrieved by the said Order dated 10.03.2015 of District Forum, Petitioners appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 01.10.2015, dismissed FA No. 177/2015 and upheld the order dated 10.03.2015 passed by the District Forum.

6.         Petitioners have challenged the said Order dated 01.10.2015 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

(i)        The impugned order is devoid of law and therefore is liable to be set-aside. The State Commission has not perused the documents and affidavit properly and has passed the order which is against law.  The State Commission has not considered the objection of the OPs that the complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum as it was not the consumer dispute.

(ii)       The case registered by District Forum was not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum, objection to that effect was taken by the OPs in their written arguments.

(iii)     The State Commission has overlooked the important fact that by allowing the amendment at the order stage by which the entire nature of complaint was changed.  Even after the objection of OPs, the State Commission has not given the correct observation.

(iv)      The State Commission without considering the fact that the cost of house was of Rs.47,00,000/- in which the work of false ceiling, interior and some specimen materials was not included and these works were to be done by the complainant himself.  This fact has been suppressed by the complainant.   The State Commission has believed the false report and has given the illegal observation. The State Commission overlooked the important fact that the OPs had replied to the notice dated 15.10.2011 sent by the complainant and in the reply of notice it was clearly stated that the price of the house was Rs.47,00,000/-.  

(v)       The State Commission has passed the order by believing the one sided version of the complainant.  The State Commission has erred in confirming the order passed by the District Forum.  The State Commission has given the baseless direction that if the possession is not being given then the amount of Rs.19,50,000/- will be paid by the OPs.  The State Commission overlooked the evidence which was before it and has passed the order merely on the basis of presumption.

7.         Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

7.1           In addition to the averments made under the grounds (para 6), the petitioners contended that the District Forum was not having the pecuniary jurisdiction as the amount of the house was more than Rs.20,00,000/-.  As per Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 the jurisdiction of the District Forum was upto 20 lakhs.  The State Commission without going through the Act has passed the illegal order.  It is further contended that the dispute between the parties was not a consumer dispute because the dispute was regarding the money and cost of the house also which is not possible to decide in summary procedure and it requires elaborate evidence. In support of this contention the Petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Synco Industries V. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & Ors. Appeal (Civil) NO. 6453/2000.  The Petitioner also relied upon the judgments passed by this Commission in Niwas Spinning Mills Ltd. and Others V. Canbank Mutual Fund and Anr., Jaya Shree Insulators V. West Bengal State Electricity, M/s Bright Transport Co. V.  The Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., Ms. Reema Bajaj V. Smt. Vidya Khera and Ors. The Fora below without going through the judgments which were filed before them have passed the order.  Therefore the observation given by the State Commission deserves to be set-aside. It is further contended that the price of house was Rs.47,00,000/- in which the cost of false ceiling and interior and specimen material was not included.  It was undisputed that the complainant has paid the amount of Rs.32,14,000/- and has not paid the balance amount.  The Petitioners have very clearly stated in reply to the notice that the price of the house was Rs.47,00,000/-.  The Respondent has stated that the price of the house was Rs.25,14,000/- and they have paid Rs.7,00,000/- more to the Petitioners.  It is also contended that if the price was Rs.25,14,000/- then why the Respondent will pay more amount than the price fixed.  It is also contended that the Respondent has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the facts.  As per the complainant the price of the house was Rs.25,14,000/- and he has paid Rs.7,00,000/- more and apart from that he has claimed compensation 2000/- per day.  The State Commission in its order dated 01.10.2015 has given the observation in para 13 that there is no complicated question of law in the present case, which is not correct.  The State Commission has confused themselves and has given the wrong observation by believing on the pleadings of the complainant, which is clear from para 14 of the order in which the State Commission on believing the  certificate produced by complainant before the District Forum, which was the report of Netram Sahu Planix Associates who has done the inspection as per the complainant in the absence of the OPs.  From the perusal of report it is clear that the report is made on the direction of the complainant and the report is defective as the calculation done Netram Sahu is not as per the law and he has assessed the amount illegally without any basis, which is clear from the observation given by the State Commission. The State Commission has passed the order as per the amount assessed by Net Ram Sahu, which was not having evidential value. It is also contended that the Respondent failed to prove that there was any defective construction or the work was of substandard quality.

7.2           On the other hand, Respondent has contended that after receiving payment of Rs.25,14,000/- from the Respondent and additional amount of Rs.7,00,000/- , a total of Rs.32,14,000/- received by the Petitioners, the construction work was not completed, which  deprived the Respondent of using his house, hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners.  The Petitioners have not proved the construction of work to the extent of the cost of Rs.25,14,000/- paid by the Respondent.  The Petitioners have not delivered the possession, within the stipulated period of time and no reason for delay in construction has been given, which is deficiency in service and Respondent is entitled to compensation.  In this context, the Respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme in Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D’lima (2018) 5 SCC 442: (2018) 3 SCC (Civil) 1: 2018 SCC OnLine SC 292 at page 449, para 15,21,22, 25.  It is further contended that the  Consumers not to wait indefinitely-not bound to take possession and are entitled to refund.  In this context, the Respondent has relied upon the following judgments:

    (i) Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. V. Govindan Raghavan  (2019) 5 SCC 725: (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 37: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 458 at page 732 @ Para 6.1, 6.2.

(ii) Ireo Grace Realtech (P) Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna (2021) 3 SCC 241: (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 121: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 277 at page 272@ Para 43, 49.

The Respondent has further contended that more than 11 years have passed, the building is in a bad condition-material used are of sub-standard and highly inferior quality.  The Petitioners have reduced width of the road in front of plot-constructing temples against the rules in Rishabh Nagar.  No expert report was filed by the Petitioners regarding high standard construction of the building.  It is also contended that no demand notice was issued by the builder as per the construction linked program, showing that the Respondent is defaulter.  It is also contended that no objection to jurisdiction was made in the written statement filed by the Petitioners.  The jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum is to be decided by itself.  Complaint cannot be returned before looking into nature.  In support of this contention, the Respondent has relied upon the following judgments:

(i)   Trai Foods Ltd. v. National Insurance Co, (2004) 13 SCC 656: 20003 SCC OnLine SC 160 page 658.

(ii)  CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. v. Development Credit Bank Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 233: 2003 SCC OnLine SC 933, page 238 @ Para 10.

   It is also contended by the Respondent that amendment in complaint can be made before the final argument.  The Respondent has given reference of the following judgments stating that Amendment is allowed at any stage:

(i)   Abdul Rehman V. Mohd. Ruldu, (2012) 11 SCC 341: (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 314:2012 SCC OnLine SC 794 at page 347 @ para 18.

    (ii)   Gurbakhsh Singh V. Buta Singh, (2018) 6 SCC 567: (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 771: 2018 SCC OnLine SC 465 at page 569 @ Para 5.

It is further contended that no consequential amendment was made by the Petitioners.  The District Forum allowed sufficient opportunity of consequential amendment but the Petitioners did not make any amendment.  It is also contended that no evidence was produced by the Petitioners that cost of Rs.47,00,000/- was agreed upon for  construction  of  house.  There  is  no  evidence  regarding  hike  in  the price  of construction.  The Petitioners have not rebutted the report of Netram
Sahu,  who  certified  the construction work executed by Petitioners costs to Rs.8,46,035/-.  The  cost of construction was approved by the Central Valuation Board Raipur and Public Works Department, Chhattisgarh, is Rs.8,46,035/-.  The requisite cost of construction with high-quality construction and fittings is Rs.12,75,000/- and the estimated cost for completing the remaining work along with high-quality construction and fittings and for the repair of damages caused due to delay and non-maintenance is Rs.5,75,000/-.

8.         In this case Petitioners contend that the agreed cost of construction was Rs.47,00,000/-, which also did not include the cost of false ceiling, interior and some specimen material while the Respondent contends that it was Rs.25,14,000/- (Rs.23,40,000/- construction cost plus Rs.1,74,000/- for false ceiling), against which he paid Rs.32,14,000/- and despite that work was not completed within the set time frame and sub-standard material have been used.  There was no written agreement executed between the parties, only oral agreement was entered into between the parties.  Complainant contends that estimated cost of completion, due to escalation on account of delay, was Rs.19,50,000/-. Petitioners contended that construction was stopped due to non-payment of balance amount from the agreed Rs.47.0 lakhs.  The Petitioners denied reducing the width of road as alleged and stated that high quality material has been used and temple has been constructed as per wishes and consent of other  residents of the Society and has been built at a vacant land within a very small area and no one has objected to the construction of the temple.  The State Commission has appropriately dealt with the contentions of the Petitioners with regard to amendment at a late stage of proceedings, case not being a consumer dispute and needs to be dealt by a Civil Court due to complicated facts and we are in agreement with the same.  Award of contract for construction of house by Respondent to Petitioners is not in dispute, notwithstanding that there is no written agreement.

9.         As has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments^[1] that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate (revisional) jurisdiction.

10.       District Forum, after due appreciation of facts of the case and evidence before it, has concluded that OPs (Petitioners herein) have committed extreme delay in construction work, have done construction work of inferior quality and that incomplete work has been done and possession has not been handed over to the Complainant/Respondent within the timeline and as such have committed grave deficiency in service.  Extract of relevant paras of orders of District Forum is reproduced below:

“6.  Based on the pleadings of parties, following issues arises for consideration in the case, findings thereon are as under:-

xxxx

Findings of Forum:-

8.  After perusal case, all the issues for consideration are disposed of together.

xxxx

11.            On perusal of case, we find that the complainant through Advocate had given notice Annexure-6 to non-applicants, in the said notice the complainant furnishing complete details stated that construction work was to be done on 2600 sq.ft. area @ Rs.900 per sq. ft. regarding which complainant had submitted drawing and sanctioned plan to the non-applicants and as stated in the said Annexure-6, complainant had paid Rs.25,14,000 to non-applicants but non-applicants used inferior construction material. As per oral contract, construction work was to be done within three years, which too was not completed and when complainant complained to non-applicants, the non-applicants told this that cost of construction of house has increased due to hike in material and as such demanded additional amount. Non-applicants have not proved the construction work to the extent of cost for which complainant has paid Rs.25,14,000 because on behalf of non-applicants no documents. have been filed nor any Report of Expert has been filed, whereas, the complainant has filed different photographs vide Annexure- 19, from which it prima facie is proved that construction work is totally incomplete which is confirmed from Annexure-18 certificate also, as per which Net Ram Sahu, Engineer, has certified in detail that construction work is incomplete, construction work is 5 to 6 years old, said construction has suffered damages due to negligence and storing Bajri, Sand at the roof top, house has suffered sufficient damage. In this documentary evidence Annexure- 18 not rebutted, it has been certified that whatever construction work executed by non-applicants, cost thereof is only Rs.8,46,035/-. Fact of cost of completing this construct work now has also been mentioned in this Annexure-18, whereas, non-applicants have not produced any evidence in rebuttal of this document, hence, there does not appear to be any ground to not rely upon Annexure-18 certificate and Annexure-19 photograph. No evidence in rebuttal to the notice Annexure-6 sent by complainant to non-applicants has been filed, hence, it is proved from these documents remained un-rebutted that the non-applicants committed extreme delay in construction work and executed incomplete construction work and construction work also was not done in proportionate to the amount paid by the complainant and when complainant made complaint, contrarily allegation has been made against complainant that amount of construction work was agreed at Rs.47,00,000.

12 . As such, we find sufficient grounds to conclude that the non- applicants have committed gross deficiency in service and commercial misconduct in the alleged construction work, non-applicants have not stated this reason anywhere that why they committed such delay in construction work, it was the duty of non-applicants that in case complainant was not paying the amount as alleged by them on time, they would have immediately given notice to the complainant in that respect and demanded balance amount but the non-applicants have not produced any such evidence, whereas, complainant has given Annwexure-6. Notice to non-applicants, in refutation of which neither any evidence has been filed nor reply to said notice has been proved by the non-applicants and therefore it is reasonable to conclude from this that the complainant had given notice on true grounds. Annexure-6 notice was given to non-applicants but as non-applicants themselves were at fault, hence, they did not give reply to the notice of complainant.

13. Certainly the price of material for construction work might have gone up due to so many years taken in the construction work but from the perusal of this case it is evident that as per certificate Annexure-18, construction work has not been done even in proportionate to the amount paid by the complainant to non-applicants and the non-applicants have not proved this that what they had done with the amount, why so much delay has unnecessarily been caused by non- applicants in the construction work and in such a case, we do not even find complainant liable to pay amount consequent to increase in cost.

14. Commercial misconduct of non-applicants is proved on this point also through Annexure-6 Notice that it has been mentioned in para 5 of Annexure-6 that as per sanctioned lay out, 25 ft. road has been shown in front of house whereas 25 ft. road does not exist in front of house of complainant and the area left for garden and open land, temple has been built thereon. As such, it is the argument of complainant that the non-applicants have been executing the work related to construction wrongfully right from the beginning and they had not maintained transparency in their work.

15. It is also the argument of complainant that whatever material used by the non-applicants in the conduction work is sub- standard and highly inferior regarding which it is proved from certificate Annexure-18 that the construction work is of inferior quality against which no evidence has been filed by the non-applicants, it is proved from photograph Annexure-19 also that the non-applicants had no intention to execute construction work of high quality during the fixed time period and in fact the non-applicants have taken defence on false grounds that when additional amount was demanded from complainant, the complainant made payment of Rs.7,00,000 but we do not find it proper to extend benefit of this point to non-applicants, because a person would invest so huge amount of Rs.25,14,000 in his house only when he would get trapped in the hands of builders and he finds a ray of hope that on his paying additional amount, the builders would complete the construction work and this becomes his compulsion that he pay some additional amount to builders and get completed the construction work of house.

16. Non-applicants have not furnished any such ground that if the quality of said house built by them was of high standard, then why report of Expert in that respect was not filed? Complainant has filed sufficient documentary evidence regarding amount paid by him, hence, it cannot be held that detailed evidence is required to decide this dispute, because detailed report and photographs also regarding said construction work have been filed from which inference can be easily drawn regarding construction that the construction work was not executed by the non-applicants in proportionate to the amount received by them from complainant. Resultantly, it is held that the dispute can be decided without evidence. Consequently, the preliminary objection of non-applicants is not liable to be accepted.

17. It is clear from perusal of case that the non-applicants had not completed the construction work during the period of three years after receiving so fat hard earned money of complainant, on the other hand as per para 8 of complaint promised of completing the construction work within one year after taking Rs.7,00,000 but that too was not done. Otherwise, the non-applicants in their defence would have certainly produced phonographs of construction work. In these circumstances, it is proved that non-applicants had done incomplete construction and used inferior quality material in the construction, otherwise they would have certainly produced evidence in rebuttal of Annexure-18 Certificate.

18. When someone invest his hard earned money to huge extent in building his house, he nurtures this dream that he would spend his hard earned money to get house within prescribed time limit and when non-applicants have shown this dream to customer that they would build and provide house to him, then it was the duty of non-applicants that when the complainant has invested so huge money for house, the construction of same was to be completed by them within prescribed timed limit. Taking so huge amount by non- applicants and not handing over possession of house to the complainant after completing the construction work at the earliest itself is commercial misconduct and in such a case if cost of construction goes up due to delay and faults committed by non-applicants, then imposing the liability of the same on the complainant would be commercial misconduct.”

11.       Appeal filed by Petitioners herein before the State Commission was dismissed and order of District Forum was upheld.  State Commission in its order observed as follows:

“14. The respondent/complainant has clearly stated that first Rs.25,14,000/- (Rs. twenty five lacs fourteen thousand) was paid and thereafter additional amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rs. seven lacs) paid. On behalf of respondent/complainant, certificate Annexure-18 issued by Net Ram Sahu, Planex Associates has been filed and in which it is clearly mentioned that :-

"Certified that semi-built house is on khasra No.495/20 area 6043 2580 sq.ft. of Shri Angarak Dev Deshmukh S/o Shri Mohit Kumar Deshmukh R/o S.M.-10, Padamnabhpur, Durg (C.G.), site inspection of which was done by me for valuation. The said house No.13/14 has the built up area of 1279.36 sq. ft. at ground floor and 1239.41 sq. ft. at first floor, thus total built up area is 2518.77 sq. ft. Only structure work (brick) of house No.13/14 has been done and plaster work of some portion of front elevation has been done. Finishing work such as plaster on both the dies, tiles fitting, electric fitting, pipe fitting work for water supply, doors, frames, windows and grill work, entire sanitary, fitting, sewerage pipe line, railing work, putti work from inside and outside, painting work inside-outside, leveling work of open land portion are pending and repair of damage due to negligence in construction work and storing Bajri and Sand on the roof is yet to be undertaken. As such, entire finishing work is pending.

That construction work of house No.13/14 has been done in 2008-09 as per the sanctioned building permission. Construction work is about 5 to 6 years old. House, due to not doing necessary maintenance, the under construction has suffered much damage.

That cost of construction of aforesaid House No.13/14 as per Para 6 and 7 of Annexure-1 Principles Guidelines for market value of properties built within the limit of Municipal area vide Schedule of Rates for the year 2008-09 for conduction of house approved by Central Valuation Board, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and Public Works Department, Chhattisgarh Government, is as under:-

1. Work done at present the cost of which as per para 7 of the Principle Guidelines of Central Valuation Board for 2008-09 is Rs.8,46,035/- (Rs. eight lacs forty six thousand thirty five) only.

2. Cost of requisite construction with high quality construction and fittings is Rs.12,75,000/- (Rs. twelve lacs seventy five thousand) as per para 06 of Principle Guidelines of Central Valuation Board for 2008-09.

3. Estimated cost is Rs.5,75,000/- (Rs. five lacs seventy five thousand) for completing the remaining work now along with high quality construction and fittings and for repair of damages caused due to delay and non-maintenance.

Note-1. Construction material used used - sub-standard material used.

 2. Construction work is of inferior quality.

3. As construction work remained pending for about 05 years, damage suffered is Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. one lac).

4. Loss/Damage due to storing of sand and Bajri, Gitti on the roof due to collection of rainy water in the entire roof and due to sand and Bajri, seepage problem has occurred which has caused heavy damage to the roof.

5. Loss/Damage due to plastering work remained pending for many years -  Due to moss and rain and joint filing not done in the joints, its strength has weakened.

6. Garbage and wastes etc. material have been stored inside and inner rooms of the said semi-built house which has also caused damage to the house."

Photographs have also been filed on behalf of respondent/complainant. In rebuttal thereof, no such documentary evidence has been filed on behalf of appellants/non-applicants and nor any Report of Expert in rebuttal of report given by Net Ram Sahu has been obtained. In such a case, there is no ground to not rely upon the documents Annexure-6 and Annexure-18 etc. filed by respondent/complainant and regarding Annexure-18, had appellants/non-applicants wanted they could have got the site inspection done from any Engineer or Architect to secure report as how the construction of house has in fact been done, material of which quality has been used therein and what is the cost of construction and the same could have been filed by them. However, no such document has been filed. In such circumstances, no ground exists for not relying upon the pleadings of respondent/complainant and no ground is available to distrust the findings given by District Forum that the appellants/non-applicants have not taken care of proper quality and even after receiving amount from respondent/complainant, have kept the construction work incomplete and have used inferior quality material.

15. On behalf of appellants/non-applicants, it has been tried to bring out that the respondent/complainant has admitted that the respondent/complainant would be liable to pay the additional amount as a result of hike in cost of material. However, no such evidence in this case has been filed by appellants/non-applicants that the delay caused in construction of house was bonafide. In fact, it appears that even after payment of Rs.32,14,000/- (Rs. thirty two lacs fourteen thousand) by the respondent/complainant, the appellants/non-applicants have not completed the construction work on time and in such a case, even if price of building material has increased, the respondent/complainant cannot be held liable for the same.”

12.       In view of the foregoing, we are in agreement with the observations and findings of both the Fora below.  The State Commission has given a well-reasoned order and we find no reason to interfere with its findings. We find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed.

13.       The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.