Plaint upheld, but consumer panel says one-sided expert report is unacceptable

Pratap and Supriya Sawant entrusted renovation of their Goa bungalow to Aarush Kitchen and Bedrooms, a proprietary concern of Suraj Naik. The quotation dated November 3, 2014 estimated the cost at Rs37,11,000. The work had to be completed by the end of July 2015.
On receipt of 35% advance, work commenced. Though the Sawants ended up paying Rs 46,50,000, which was considerably more than the quoted amount, work was not completed within the stipulated period.
The Sawants filed a complaint before the Goa State Commission which directed the contractor to refund Rs 38,10,000 along with 9% interest.Additionally, Rs.1 lakh was awarded as compensation and Rs20,000 as costs.
The contractor appealed to the National Commission, which observed the State Commission had decided the matter on the basis of an architect's report produced by the Sawants. It noted the report was obtained after the contractor had filed his written statement of defense.
The architect had not even intimated the contractor to remain present for a joint survey. The report was brought on record by the Sawants by making an amendment to the complaint.
The National Commission held this was not legally permissible, as the report ought to have been obtained through a commissioner appointed by the state commission after conducting a survey in the presence of both the parties. Since this procedure was not followed, the National Commission considered the report one sided and unacceptable.
By its order of August 19, the National Commission upheld the finding of deficiency in service, but remanded the matter for determining the quantum of the refund and suitable compensation.
(The author is a consumer activist and has won the Govt. of India's National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His e-mail is jehangir.gai.columnist@outlook.in)