M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite party before the lower forum is the appellant herein.
(2.) The Respondent/Complainant entered into an agreement with opposite party originally on 22.11.1991 for the purchase of undivided share of land as well as a flat for a sum of Rs.2.25 lakhs, for the ground floor area measuring 800 sq.ft., for a further consideration of Rs.2,19,000/-. Under the agreement construction, should be completed, possession should be handed over within 11 months from the date of handing over of the vacant possession by the owner of the land. The possession of the land was handed over on 18.07.1992. Thereafter, the opposite party/appellant extended the plinth area from 800 sq.ft. to 1040 sq.ft. for the enhanced cost of construction of Rs.1,26,169/- plus additional undivided share of land, sale consideration of Rs.65,831/- as well Rs.10,200/- towards registration charges. After construction, by causing delay also, the flat was handed over after two year and eight months, that is on 11.03.1995 as agreed. The opposite party has not fulfilled all the conditions and the materials used for the construction were below standard or sub-standard, resulting cracks, wornout weathering course, etc., as described in Para 5 of the complaint. Despite repeated request to rectify the defects, the builder has failed to do so, which should be construed as deficiency in service. Therefore, the opposite party should be directed to rectify the defects as detailed in Para 5 (a) to (1) in addition to, as detailed in prayer Column 6 to 12 for compensation also.
(3.) The Appellant/Opposite Party accepting the agreement as well as the subsequent agreement [Memorandum of Understanding] would contend, that as agreed, the complainant has not paid the entire amount, that the payment of electricity charges for the consumption should be paid only by the complainant, that the complainant having not paid the entire amount, cannot accuse the builder as if there is deficiency in service, that the claim is barred by limitation, that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the case and on these ground with among other grounds, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.;