Contractor abandons tile work, ordered to refund Rs 85,000 with interest, pay Rs 50,000

6 min readNew DelhiJun 17, 2026 04:30 PM IST

After taking Rs 85,000, the contractor and workers failed to return to the site. (Ai-generated image)

After a man complained that a contractor abandoned tile-laying work after taking Rs 85,000, the Kangra Consumer Court, Himachal Pradesh, directed the contractor to refund the amount with 9 per cent interest per annum from the date of the complaint till its realisation, besides paying Rs 40,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 as litigation cost.

President Hemanshu and members Arti Sood and Narayan Thakur noted that the independent expert appointed by the commission had assessed the actual restoration cost at Rs 1,26,663.

“Keeping the relief confined to the scope of the original pleadings, the commission deems it just, fit, and proper to restrict the principal recovery to the paid amount and grant a quantified compensation of Rs 40,000 to address the profound harassment, mental agony, and financial distress suffered by the complainant,” the order said on June 1.

Contractor abandoned work, took Rs 85,000

After completing the construction of the first and second floors of his house in December 2024, the complainant engaged the services of the contractor (opposite party) for laying marble and tiles on the newly constructed floors.

On December 31, 2024, the complainant paid an advance consideration of Rs 10,000 via Google Pay to the contractor to initiate the work.

Subsequently, a worker named Sonu, employed by the contractor, commenced the tile-laying work on the first floor.

On January 5, 2025, the worker, Sonu, informed the complainant that his daughter was seriously ill and requested financial assistance.

He subsequently received a phone call from the contractor requesting a transfer of Rs.30,000 to the mobile number belonging to one Mohd. Billal, and the complainant transferred the amount on the same day.

In July 2025, after abandoning the work for approximately six months on the pretext of his daughter’s illness, Sonu returned to the site on July 27, 2025, along with two additional labourers to resume work.

On July 28, 2025, Sonu demanded a further Rs.20,000 for labour expenses.

Upon request from the contractor, the aforementioned amount was also transferred to the same mobile number belonging to Mohd. Billal.

On July 31, 2025, Sonu visited the complainant’s residence and stated that because the work was spread across both the first and second floors, more hands were needed.

Sonu requested Rs.25,000 in cash to facilitate bringing three more labourers from Hamirpur.

The complainant paid the cash after duly informing the contractor; in total, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.85,000 to the contractor and his authorised workmen.

On August 1, 2025, the workers failed to return to the site.

On the next day, the complainant visited the accommodation provided to Sonu, only to find it completely vacated.

The work was abandoned in an incomplete and highly substandard state.

Alleging deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

Contractor did not contest the complaint

It was submitted that the notices were sent to the opposite party by the commission, which were duly served, but none appeared on behalf of the opposite party and the matter was proceeded ex parte.

The complainant was called upon to produce evidence, and he produced all the requisite documents; on the other hand, the opposite party, despite valid service, did not bother to contest the complaint and opted to remain ex parte.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, held that the contractor, despite valid service, did not bother to contest the complaint and opted to remain ex parte.

Noting the material on record, the commission observed that the evidence adduced by the complainant remains unrebutted and unchallenged, and hence, there was no reason to disbelieve the cogent and convincing evidence adduced by the complainant.

Story continues below this ad

Local commissioner appointed

To ascertain the factual reality and assess the exact nature and valuation of the loss, the commission, through its order dated December 20, 2025, appointed Vishal Jassal, B.Tech Civil, as an independent expert local commissioner to inspect the premises.

The Local Commissioner visited the site on December 29, 2025, in the presence of the complainant’s counsel and submitted his detailed technical report dated January 5, 2026.

In his report, the expert mentioned that the tile work was laid in cement mortar wherein 70 per cent of the tiles were found to be loose and making hollow noises when walked upon on the floor surface.

The expert explicitly observed that there was no scope or alternative available for repairing the defective work, and the only viable remedy to ensure a smooth, stable, and acceptable finish was to completely remove the old tiles and lay fresh tiles.

Story continues below this ad

The expert had assessed the total cost to restore the premises to its proper state at Rs 1,26,663.

Award by commission

It is pertinent to note that while the independent expert assessed the actual restoration cost at Rs 1,26,663, the complainant has strictly restricted their prayer in the original complaint to a refund of the consideration actually paid to the contractor, the commission said.

Therefore, keeping the relief confined to the scope of the original pleadings, the commission restricted the principal recovery to the paid amount and granted a quantified compensation of Rs 40,000 to address the profound harassment, mental agony, and financial distress suffered by the complainant.

Accordingly, the commission allowed the complaint and the opposite party was directed to pay an amount of Rs 85,000 to the complainant along with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of complaint till its realisation.

Story continues below this ad

Apart from this, the opposite party was also directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs 40,000, besides litigation costs quantified as Rs 10,000.

Consumer takeaway from case

The ruling underscores that a contractor cannot abandon the work midway and leave the consumer stranded. It highlights that a consumer cannot be deprived of their right to relief.

In this case, the commission directed the contractor to refund the amount with interest and awarded additional compensation, reaffirming the consumer’s entitlement to redress the grievance of survival.

Aggrieved consumers may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Himachal Pradesh helpline: 1800-180-8087) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights.

She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life.

Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach.

Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More

Tags:

compensation

Himachal Pradesh

Kangra district