JUDGMENT : As per S.K. Kulshreshtha, J.:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 20-8-2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Seoni in C.C. No. 32/2008. 2. The matter relates to a building contract. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that an agreement to construct a house was entered into in 2007 for a consideration of Rs. 3,65,000/- to be completed within four months. However, since the respondent did not complete the house as promised, the appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum called the report of Mr. P.C. Tembhare, a qualified Civil Engineer, who in his report stated that in place of 521 sq. ft. area on the ground floor was 907 sq. ft. while on the first floor though according to the drawing only 300 sq. ft. was to be constructed, construction extended to 381 sq. ft. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The respondent has not appeared despite presumption of service of notice against him and SPC. 4. The expert opined that in windows and doors itself an expense of Rs. 24,500/- would be necessary. He has got given any specific amount that is required to complete the house. 5. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant stated that even if in the present condition the house is made available to the appellant for which he will pay a total sum of Rs. 3,65,000/-, remaining work will be carried out by the appellant himself. We find that in carrying out the work, the contractor must not have spent from his pocket and Rs. 3,65,000/- would adequately compensate him. Under these circumstances, we direct that the contractor shall handover the incomplete constructed building to the appellant on the condition that the appellant pays him in aggregate a sum of Rs. 3,65,000/- and the remaining work will be carried out by the appellant himself without there being any corresponding liability of the respondent. 6. With the above direction this appeal is disposed of with no order.as to costs.