V. SUDHAKAR Vs. T. RAVICHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant is the appellant in this appeal arising out of the decision in O.P. No. 156/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu. The complaint has been filed seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,00,000 towards compensation for deficiency in service and Rs. 2,00,000 towards mental agony and physical strain on the following allegations: (a) The complainant entered into a construction agreement with the opposite party on 13.12.1990 for construction of flat 'B' in the ground floor measuring 630 sq. ft. in the scheme known as Sri Krishna Flat in Plot No. 5, Krishnaraja Nagar, 137, Velacherry Village, Chennai -88. The entire cost had been paid by the complainant to the opposite party. In addition, he paid a sum of Rs. 25,000 on demand by the opposite party for which no receipt was issued. He took possession of the flat on 22.8.1999. On taking possession, he found several defects in the construction. He called upon the opposite party to rectify the defects. The opposite party not having rectified the defects, the present complaint came to be filed.

(2.) IN the written version filed by the opposite party, he has stated as follows: (a) The agreement between the parties contemplates reference to Arbitrator and the Consumer Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. There was no extra payment in a sum of Rs. 25,000 paid by the complainant to the opposite party as claimed. The amount paid was only Rs. 4,88,000 for the flat and the undivided share in the land when the amount due was Rs. 5,25,000. There was still a sum of Rs. 37,000 payable by the complainant to the opposite party. The complainant had occupied the property in June and not on 22.8.1999. Whatever defects had been pointed out by the complainant were superficial in nature and they had been invented only for the purpose of the case. It was not correct to say that the flat was not in a good condition. The flat was handed over in absolutely tenantable condi -tion. There was no deficiency in service.

(3.) ON the above pleadings, the District Forum raised the following two points for consideration: (1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedies sought for?