M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
(2.) The appellant/ complainant, approached the District Forum, seeking direction against the opposite parties, for the payment of Rs.4,40,000/- with subsequent interest, on the following grounds: The complainant, and the opposite party entered into a construction agreement dt.8.10.1997, for the construction of a flat, valued at Rs.15,18,400/-, measuring an extent of 1104 sq.ft. Pursuant to that, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.14,00,000/-, and the opposite party agreed to adjust the balance of Rs.1,18,400/- towards the omission for providing covered car park, since it was not provided, or it should be deemed to have been paid the entire price, and in this view, there is no balance.
(3.) The builder/ opposite party, committed many acts of deficiency, and due to this, in the bathroom, roof fell down, causing damage, which was agreed to be replaced by the opposite party. The omission on the part of the opposite party, to replace the false roofing, should be construed as deficiency in service, for which the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.25000/-.;