M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The complainant is the appellant.
(2.) The complainant / appellant, entered into an agreement with the opposite party, for the construction of a flat, under which the opposite party had agreed to handover the building, within the specified time, and accordingly, handed over the constructed flat on 24.10.99, but without completing the work as agreed, as a whole. After complaint by the complainant, the opposite party promised to complete the unfinished works, for which he had executed a guarantee deed on 4.8.2011, under which specific work to be carried out are incorporated. As per the agreement for construction, it is the duty of the opposite party to provide car parking, which he failed to provide. Even after undertaking, the opposite party failed to carry out the incomplete work, as well as the damage caused due to substandard materials, thereby he had committed deficiency in service, compelling the complainant to file the case, seeking direction against the opposite party to carryout and complete the remaining work, as well as to provide car parking, including compensation.
(3.) The opposite party, questioning the jurisdiction of the District Forum, contended that it is a joint venture agreement, resisted the case, further contending, that he had completed the entire internal work of the flat purchased by the complainant, and possession was also handed over to the satisfaction of the complainant, except to complete the weathering course, that too due to non-cooperation and interference of the legal heirs of the original agreement holder, that after receiving the notice, they have carried out weathering course work also, that since they have not committed any deficiency, or any defect in the building there is no question of issuing any direction warranting compensation also, questioning the availability of the car parking also, in the agreement.;