M. THANIKACHALAM J - (1.) The unsuccessful complainant in OP.No.63/1998, on the file of the District Forum, Chennai (South), is the appellant.
(2.) It is the case of the complainant that, as per the construction agreement dt.5.9.93, the opposite party agreed to complete the construction work, and deliver the flat within 10 months from the date of the agreement. The complainant made all the payments to the opposite party, under the hope the opposite party will provide all the facilities assured. During the construction, the complainant noticed some deviation, and issued a notice requesting the opposite party, to give the breakup total built up area of his flat, for which the opposite party assured that details would be furnished at the time of handing over of the possession. Later, the complainant came to know that the opposite party had obtained the signature of the complainant in a letter, captioned as Possession Letter on 26.9.95, as if the handed over the key of the said flat, on that day itself. On measurement, it is noticed that the complainants flat is only 1200 sq.ft., whereas the assured extent is 1495 sq.ft. As per the MMDA regulations, for every flat, having builtup area of 100 sq.meter, car parking should be provided, which is also not provided in this case. Because of the non-availability of the car park, the complainant is unable to let out the flat, profitably. In view of the illegal acts of the opposite party, the complainant has been put to irreparable loss, hardship and money. The complainant was able to fix a tenant only from September 1997, that too for lesser rent of Rs.4500/-, though the flat would fetch reasonable rent of Rs.7000/-. The Flat Owners Association is charging Rs.971/- per month, for the general maintenance of the complex. For the deficiency in area, as well as for the monetary loss sustained in renting out the premises, the opposite party should pay a sum of Rs.4,07,183/-, towards compensation. On the above averments, the complaint came to be filed not only for compensation, but also for a direction to provide car parking, as well as to rectify the deviations made in the construction of the residential complex, in violation of the building plan, approved by MMDA.
(3.) The opposite party denying all the averments in the written version, has stated further that the complainant was a habitual defaulter in payment of the amounts towards the instalment to the opposite party, that CMDA had certified that the construction was put up as per the plan approved, thereby showing there is no deviation at all, that the complainant took possession of the flat, agreeing what is stated therein on 25.9.95 itself, that the opposite party before taking possession of his flat, inspected every aspect of the flat, and after satisfying alone, he had signed, that the complainant had not included the common area and other area, which is also should be included, thus total area comes to 1495 sq.ft., that the complainant having agreed to take the flat without car parking, is not entitled to claim any car parking area, at present, that for renting the premises for lesser amount, the opposite party cannot be held liable, and therefore the claim should be dismissed.;